UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2017: +0.45 deg. C

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2017 was +0.45 deg. C, up from the April, 2017 value of +0.27 deg. C (click for full size version):

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

So your only recourse is to BS claims of corruption.
Are you claiming that NOAA modified one month of ONI data so that when I came along a year later and ignored El Nino months it would place May 2017 1st instead of 2nd?

You are cherry picking November as a starting point to try to prove there is warming. Climate variability is measured in years not months. Look how much cooler the first half of 2017 is compared to the first half 2016. and no it was not the la ninas fault. This La Nia was one of the weakest on record.

For those of you warmists who blame the global temp decline on La Nia here is a chart saying that the 1998-2000 La Nia was much stronger then the one we just experienced over the past year. I’ll give anyone $1000 if they can explain how this weak La Nia is what is is causing the cooling when this La Nia was much weaker then the 1999-2000 event.

The peak was November 2016 and even that was small compared to 1998 La Nia. May and June 2016 temperature drops were just as steep as 1998 yet La Nia wasn’t even at its peak yet and better yet hasn’t even developed.

It’s even worse. It was only a La Nina in the 3.4 region. Nino 1+2 was actually very warm at the same time. This pretty much negated any major cooling impact on global temperatures.

I doubt we will be able to understand where we are until we experience another standard La Nina and return from there to neutral conditions. This could take 2-3 years. However, it does look like a new La Nina could be getting its act together. Won’t know for several months.

It is interesting that you mention the weak La Nina (learn to spell please), but failed to mention the strong El Nino. Temperatures this year have fallen ONLY due to the fact we are no longer in El Nino.

Corrected for biases??? The data was slashed from 6500 stations to under 1500 stations with the latter being applied to a climate model where it was interpolated and homogenized to SYNTHESIZE the missing stations.

Synthesizing data is not correcting it, it is rewriting it based on the bias of the writer.

NOAA is corrupt. The propaganda you offered in the link clarifies nothing. It is more corruption.

I suppose repeating the truth will have exactly the same impact as before.

Not slashed. 5000 stations were added retrospectively – non-reporting stations, many of which were transferred by hand to the format used by GHCN. After that was done (in the mid-90s), the number of stations dropped back to 1500 – that report their data to GHCN in the format used by the software.

You’ve been told this umpteen times and shown the 1997 research paper that details the effort. But it seems you have zero interest in the truth, just the talking point.

Bob seems to have his own way of counting. I thought I’d check his claims for March 2017. Turns out 98,02,04,07,10,16 were all warmer and 05 was a tie. In addition, 01,03,06 and 15 were all basically in a statistical tie with 2017.

Sorry Bob, if you fail on the first year I checked you just blew any possible credibility.

So what is really a non El Nino month? The Nino 1+2 has had temperatures well above other years that were considered El Nino months. What we have seen over the past few years is our “experts” don’t really understand ENSO at all and hence their definition of El Nino is suspect.

Now this is really not surprising. We’ve only had decent data for 30-40 years. The problem is these people have claimed to be experts and it is now obvious they are not any more knowledgeable than most laymen.

The AMO should stay positive until around 2025. And, this probably contains one more internal peak but will be mostly lower than the last 20 years. Keep in mind the AMO index is not a real good indicator of the AMO’s effect on global temperature.

The 30 year meme was very useful in the early 2000s because it started at a peak.

I’m pretty sure you don’t know what a meme is.

It’s been the standard length for decades. It’s based on statistics and physical observations – long enough to ensre interannual fluctuations like ENSO don’t affect the long-term trend.

Why not use a 60 year trend, on unadjusted data. !

Great idea. Reduce the interannual ‘weather’ variability even more and get a better climate signal.

To take that a bit further, centennial trends will weed out pretty much all the short-term variability. It won’t tell you much about acceleration, if any, but at least you’ll know if the climate has changed.

Depends how you look at it. Right now I am focused on the yearly temperature decline into the new grand solar minimum which should be noticeable to all within the next few years at the latest. As history shows us these drops in temperature tend to happen fairly quickly over a very short time frame. You can cherry pick all you want and draw an upward line from 1978 to now which Marks the end of the 19 year pause by this grand solar maximum but Nature is doing what it always does every few hundred years or so. Look at history. Its a cyclical pattern that us humans have no noticible control over.

Bob, we didn’t have UAH the last time the oceans went through these cycles not to mention the timing of the cycles is never exactly the same. However, we can see from surface data that the planet warmed considerably. The +PDO was from around 1915-1945 and the +AMO from 1930-1965.

Strangely I agree about the built up of Earth’s heat content as argument against any cooling in the near term.
Or Earth’s ocean have been warming for more than Century, which partially is reflected in the about 8″ rise in sea levels over last century. I don’t think the added heat to oceans was caused by human CO2 emission or any or all other human activity. But rather it’s indication of a ongoing recovering from the Little Ice Age. And during the Little Ice Age sea levels dropped, rather than continue the 10,000 year long term trend of rising sea levels. I’m sure if we have returned to the level of the 10,000 year long term trend [I don’t know, and not sure if anyone knows [or even if they imagine they know].
What is fairly certain is that we have measured with enough accuracy to determine that over last century or so, sea levels have risen [somewhere around 8″] and having or getting the same level of certainty with such “accuracy in the centuries early is harder. And other aspect is the portion of sea level rise due to thermal expansion of the entire or some portion [depth] of the ocean.
Anyways to quote it:
“Don Easterbrook, for example, has predicted that we should see a global cooling of 2 to 5F (1.1 to 2.8C) from 2000 to 2030 based on a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. We’re now one-third of the way into this supposed cooling period and the planet has warmed approximately 0.1C. The accuracy of this prediction is not looking good.”

Well, Don probably going to about as accurate as IPCC models
have been to date- probably too much cooling similar to the IPCC’s models of too much warming. And would note that 1.1 C of cooling would quite disaster if we got it before 2030 [or anytime in the near future]

Anyhow, the current solar cycle, has lower activity. Reminds me to look at space weather:
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2017 total: 38 days (25%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Updated 04 Jun 2017
huh, I thought we would have had more spotless days this year- anyways I have not checked on latest predictions [if any], but they were predicting it would longer period of solar inactively and having one sunspot today isn't confirming or changing it.

Out of genuine curiosity here, do you really believe that it would follow that if CO2 lags temperature in the climate record then anthropogenic CO2 cannot drive temperature change now? If so, can you explain WHY you believe this? I see it so often I usually just presume deliberate self-deception, but just for once I’d like to know if it is really what you believe. I honestly cannot see how anyone could seriously claim this.

It’s a bit like claiming that because meadows naturally start to accumulate reactive soil nitrogen after the grass and clover start to grow (they do), therefore artificial fertiliser cannot work.

Elliott…”it would follow that if CO2 lags temperature in the climate record then anthropogenic CO2 cannot drive temperature change now? If so, can you explain WHY you believe this”?

Why ignore the first statement, that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas? It’s not, of course.

For one, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, there are only gases that can absorb infrared radiation to a degree. The notion that these gases behave in the atmosphere like glass in a greenhouse is sheer bunk.

Glass in a real greenhouse really does trap heat, by trapping real molecules of heated gases. Trivial gases in the atmosphere, like CO2, at 4/100ths of 1% concentration, can’t trap much IR never mind molecules of gas.

Besides, the average temperature in a container of gases like our atmosphere is reached according to the partial pressures of it’s constituent gases. Surely it’s plain that N2/O2 at 99% partial pressure contributes nearly 99% of the heat while CO2 contributes a small fraction of 1% of the heat.

The only reason we have such a container is that gravity holds it in place, at the same time, ordering the molecules in a density gradient from densest near the surface to rarest high in the atmosphere.

Since N2/O2 are densest near the surface they receive heat by conduction and transport it high into the atmosphere via convection. Radiation is a trivial player till high in the atmosphere where all gases radiate.

“surface radiation dissipates over a few feet from the surface due to the inverse square law”

Well that certainly shows how little you understand science.

If there are no other means of dissipation, the inverse square law only affects the INTENSITY of the radiation. ie. the energy PER SQUARE METRE. It does NOT affect the TOTAL radiation trying to leave the earth.

The general inverse square law works because the surface area of an expanding shell is proportional to the square of the radius, so the energy (or whatever is being measured) per square metre drops off with the square of the RADIUS. NOT the distance from the earth’s surface.

The energy INTENSITY falls off by only 0.03% due to the inverse square law at an altitude of one kilometre.

I think of the inverse square law as a point estimate on the amount of energy leaving the earth at a specific place and the amount of energy coming back from the atmosphere at that place and the amount coming back at a specific point on the earth gets very small the greater the distance the source of radiation is coming from. The total amount of radiation leaving the earth and coming back to the earth is not relevant because we measure radiation at a specific place.

As far as your second question, the ice core data shows that CO2 follows temperature. Further, at the peak of the temperature curve, when temp begins to fall, CO2 still increases. This could suggest that CO2 has no affect on temperature but it is not proof.

It is feasible that other intervening conditions simply overwhelmed any positive feedback, if any, from CO2. However, I have not seen any data on that relationship.

bilybob…”It is feasible that other intervening conditions simply overwhelmed any positive feedback, if any, from CO2″.

There is no positive feedback from CO2. Positive feedback requires an amplifier.

There is a lot of confusion about this on the Net, where some people think positive feedback causes amplification. PF is merely a stage in an amplifier producing the exponential gain demonstrated by an amplifier with PF.

There is nothing in the atmosphere to produce such amplification and all feedbacks in the atmosphere are negative.

You can’t get something for nothing otherwise we’d have perpetual motion.

I appreciate the feedback Gordon. Is there a better term/phrase that could be used in its place? I generally view the atmosphere as transport medium for solar energy striking the surface to dissipate that energy back to space. I realize that this process is very complex as all solar energy may not reach the surface and the surface may store some in a variety of ways (plants as an example). The rate of cooling of the surface would depend on the atmosphere composition and time of day. Energy may take a longer path to space on a cloudy day even though that initial energy level is lower at the surface due to the clouds. Maybe not a perfect metaphor but like a two-way plinko (price is right), it eventually finds it way to space. Energy from surface fights its way to space, but also energy from clouds fights its way back to the surface, although eventually it is either stored or reaches space. At no time do I believe new energy is created in this scenario, but temperatures are determined by where the energy is in the system. So what should I call that or am I just off base in my understanding of atmospheric dynamics.

Ultimately I would be curious if adding 400 parts (doubling) of CO2 and removing 400 parts of something else would have a overall surface cooling effect and more productive agriculture. I think there is an obsession that CO2 is only an evil substance. But I believe there is a sweet spot as far as a level to achieve. I also believe that we are in an overall warming trend that started from the last glaciation period. But for some reason about 10k years ago, the temperature trend went a bit flat and we are cooler than we should be, looking at the reconstruction long term temperature/sea level data. I think it would be valuable to mankind to understand why.

No one with any objective sense would even try. That leaves the field open to the likes of dr no and Elliot Bignell. You wont get a scientific explanation from them, however, just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

During most of the past 400,000 years, CO2 lagged temperature. Before the Industrial Revolution, the sum of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere was essentially constant. Warming transferred carbon from the hydrosphere to the atmosphere, cooling did the opposite. Although CO2 being a greenhouse gas made it a positive feedback then, it could account for only a fraction of the temperature changes as the ice age glaciations came and went, so atmosphere CO2 level was more a result of global temperature than a cause. (I think surface albedo feedback played a major role in the comings and goings of Pleistocene glaciations.)

Since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 increased because carbon was being transferred from the lithosphere to the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing less than it would if all the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion stayed in the atmosphere, so nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere, mostly the oceans.

Depending on how one determines how much atmospheric CO2 changes from a given temperature change, the increase resulting from a 1 degree C temperature increase is anywhere from 2.8 to 5 percent, maybe even somewhat more. But CO2 is currently around 45% above pre-industrial. Most of this 45% increase is not from increase of global temperature.

Also, what do 7 months in late 2016 to early 2017 have to do with the nearly 216 months since the beginning of 1998?

We will need another 5 to 10 years to see where the current ‘no cooling trend’ is going. For all you know the months you have listed are still under the influence of the 2016 EN. We have yet to see a significant La Nina.

What qualifications??? I need a degree in climate science to remove the El Nino months??

Surely you understand that El Ninos cause temperature rises that have NOTHING to do with long-term climate trends. Do you honestly believe that when looking for long-term trends we should include distractors like El Nino?

If you knew anything about climate, you would know that global temperatures cannot be influenced by an El Nino that ended 12 months ago.

I am only stating that there is ZERO evidence for any cooling other than that due to the loss of the El Nino. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Bob…”What qualifications??? I need a degree in climate science to remove the El Nino months??”

I was not trying to attack you personally I asked because two scientists, one of them the uber-alarmist Stephan Rahmstorf, put together an statistical paper in which they claimed to have removed all ENSO activity, leaving a warming trend. The paper was bunk.

You have to get it that removing the ENs is removing the warming. Otherwise, you have to presume there is anthropogenic warming underlying the ENSO activity.

Even at that, the IPCC and UAH have claimed a flat trend from 1998 to at least 2015. Since the IPCC take their temperature record from Had-crut, and that NOAA and GISS agreed to the hiatus from 1998 – 2012, it would seem there was no warming trend even with the 1998 and 2010 EN extremes. NOAA has retroactively created one by applying syntheses in a climate model.

For you to dabble in the early stages of the EN, without knowing exactly what is going on in the planet’s climate in the future, seems somewhat premature.

“If you knew anything about climate, you would know that global temperatures cannot be influenced by an El Nino that ended 12 months ago”.

We don’t know the overall effect of an EN or how long it lasts. If you follow the red running average curve on the UAH graph you will see an approximate 0.2C abrupt rise following the 98 EN in 2002. The same thing occurred in 1977, the year the PDO was discovered.

If you are going to remove what you think is EN activity, you must also remove the activity of all the oscillations, like ENSO, the PDO, the AMO, the AO, etc. based on their respective phases. According to Tsonis et al they all work together.

No…I am claiming it did not warm on average from 1998 – 2015. I have no idea where it is currently headed. Wherever it goes I am confident nothing catastrophic will happen and that CO2 has nothing to do with it.

Moron. They call the end when it peaks, as it is then no longer being driven upward. It still takes time to relax back to steady state. Based on the extended ramp up time for the latest El Nino, the dissipation time is expected to be long, and it isn’t done yet.

Last year I was in panic mode about climate change and this year so far I’ve been basically on the fence of how bad it is/will be. I hear people saying that a 1c or 2c increase in global temperature would actually benefit the earth. Another group saying that it will end mankind in 80 years. I honestly don’t know what to believe anymore. I know that my situation would be anecdotal evidence but I live just north of Boston in a heavy marsh area on the sea and every day the tide comes in on the marsh and back out. The last 30 years the tide, to me, doesn’t look any higher than it did when I was a kid.

I’m leaning more towards it wouldn’t be an end of the world scenario but dang going on social media you think the world is over and why live. I feel like I’m in the minority of not caring/not fully believing the world will end soon. Ugh

NO climate scientist is claiming “end of the world”. But it certainly has the ability to be world CHANGING. If temperature rises are indeed restricted to only 2 degrees then we will cope with the changes with minor inconveniences. If we get to 3 degrees or higher then it will cause major problems. I get the feeling that, even with the idiocy of Trump, enough of the rest of the world is switching to renewables to get us out of the worst of it. Basically, coal is slowly dying.

James Hansen, a climatologist, is claiming end-of-world scenarios with sea level rise of over 20 feet in the next 75 years. Michael Mann, a climatologist, claims we are at the point of no return and that Antarctica will be next to melt. Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist, said in 2005 global warming was making the Atlantic hurricane season stronger even though the IPCC said otherwise. He’s also said that global warming was behind every notable weather event. Interestingly, the media run to these three knuckleheads to get the click-bait headlines.

Hansen is the worst, who pushes out non-peer reviewed papers that make ridiculous claims that the Washington Post eagerly puts on the front page above the fold.

As for sea level rise, it hasn’t increased and slowed in some areas. It’s about 2-3 mm / yr depending on where you live.

I also live near Boston and historical photos show no evidence of dramatic coastal sea level rise. They do show beach erosion and land subsidence, which are naturally occurring events.

I find it ironic that the same people who said the Paris accord was worthless and toothless are now calling it the gold standard and that Trump signed off our death certificate. The hyperbole is so pronounced you can’t even watch the news anymore.

If Obama had withdrawn from the Accord the media would now be applauding him for being courageous in the face of intense international pressure.

The problem with Paris is more that we have probably already passed the point where it can be held to. We need something stronger, so Trump’s imbecility is potentially worrying. The good news is that no-one takes the USA very seriously any more, and most of its emissions have been outsourced to China. So the US may not be able to cause that much extra harm any more. Coal’s dead, probably whatever the Toddler in Chief does. And a good thing, too, as even ignoring AW it is responsible for about 13,000 deaths in the USA, 18,000 in Europe and 250,000 in China annually due to particulate and heavy metal pollution. (AW adds about 100-150,000 p.a. globally on current estimates by the WHO.)

2-3mm per annum would be 20-30 cm in a century, quite bad enough even without the expected feedbacks and acceleration. Keep an eye on Larsen C for a potentially timely reminder. 20 feet wouldn’t be the end of the world, though. It would probably only kill about half of us.

By itself, it doesn’t. It’s sea-ice, so breaking up wouldn’t add directly to sea-level. It’s more of a dramatic illustration of what’s happening, and probably at a convenient time.

The thing is, it is now fairly well established that ice-shelves buttress the neighbouring ice shield on land, preventing it draining so fast. I forget now what the rates were, but the glaciers neighbouring the A and B shelves have accelerated dramatically since those shelves went. If C goes it will, therefore, make a slight difference to the rate of sea-level rise. But it will be quite a small one for this one shelf.

Sea-water is also known to be penetrating deep into the hidden fjords underneath polar glaciers, forcing their grounding lines inland. This accelerates drainage, too.

1) The “science” behind the AGW hoax was a failure at inception.
2) Because the “science” was wrong, the hoaxers had to “adjust” temperatures.
3) Because they got caught adjusting temps, they had to use intimidation tactics.

I didn’t “forget” it. I just remember that you are making it up. In fact, of course, the science behind AW has mostly been settled since the 19th Century, and is taught in high schools using straightforward experiments.

Elliott…”The thing is, it is now fairly well established that ice-shelves buttress the neighbouring ice shield on land, preventing it draining so fast”.

You have it somewhat backwards, Elliott. It’s ice floes in the oceans that buttress the ice shelves against wave action up to 100 feet in height. When the ice floes are absent (they move about as in the Arctic), the ice shelves are hammered with the wave action.

Ice shelves are the toes of glaciers. As the ice pushes downhill to the ocean, it pushes the toes out over the ocean where the ice hangs above it (a shelf). The ice is thick enough to support itself but over years of battering by the ocean fractures appear in the ice due to a combination of the ocean and gravity.

Before the global warming scare this action was called calving, a natural process of glaciers. Now it is claimed to be caused by global warming.

It’s a lousy match. Completely inappropriate splicing of ice core and instrumental data, and a cut off at 1900 when the directions diverge. The only reliable portion is the MLO record where both functions are roughly affine, and affine functions are always affinely similar. To make the splice, though, they have the instrumental record above temperature in the early part, and below it in the later. Pitiful legerdemain. You got nuthin.

bob…”If temperature rises are indeed restricted to only 2 degrees then we will cope with the changes with minor inconveniences”.

Since James Hansen proclaimed climate disaster in 1988, we have had little or no warming according to UAH. That’s over a period of nearly 30 years. UAH says no warming because the Tropics have literally not warmed at all. Most warming has been in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, influenced by pockets of warming in the Arctic. CO2 cannot do that.

If we’ve had 0.2C warming in 30 years it came from natural events. There is just no way to justify climate alarm based on what we’ve seen the past 30 years.

In health/medicine research, there are observational studies, which are weak because they offer only statistics and don’t/can’t control for confounding variables. Then there are clinical studies in which tight controls for variables are applied in a laboratory of other controlled environment.

For climate, in contrast, though the physical understanding is very elegantly laid out in the governing physical equations, laboratory control is not possible, so no clinical study is possible.

What’s worse, for predictions of the future, not even observational studies are possible.

In this way, climate research, is much more crude than even health research.

But, as you laid out, we do have observational study of the past. We know that greenhouse gas emissions have increased by about 3 W/m^2 post industrial ( from all GHGs, getting close to the equivalent of doubling CO2 ).

This is an important comparison. Why hasn’t the world ended with 3 W/m^2 of greenhouse warming? Things seem pretty good. Only the imaginations of disaster which aren’t even grounded in observation indicate otherwise.

There are a lot of benefits ( from the increased CO2 alone, but also the underlying energy use, and even from the warming ).

No, actually, it isnt. And in any case, we have a process to eliminate delusion. Its called science.

Yes, empirical science tends to reject most of the harm scenarios.

Mean warming, but at a rate less than the low end scenarios.
Sea level rise, but at ~3mm/year, some of which is groundwater.
No increase in global drought ( satellite era plant stress ).
No increase in US drought ( long term PDSI )
Decrease in strong US tornadoes.
Decrease in US days of extreme heat ( since 1905 ).
Decrease in non-US days of extreme heat where persistently measured.
No trend in Accumulated Cyclone Energy.

This is beyond the benefit of using already stored energy forms.

And the increase of crop yields with increased CO2.
And the increase of plant growth with increased CO2.
And the increase of drought tolerance with increased CO2.
And the increase of plant temperature range with increased CO2.

You can only have observational studies from the past if a scientist in the past observed and wrote down his observation. That is hardly the case with CO2 emissions related to ice core studies.

With CO2, what we have are proxy studies based on trapped bubbles of CO2 in Antarctic ice. Since proxy studies are open to controversy I would hardly refer to them as observational.

There is strong disagreement on the ice core studies. An expert, Jaworowski has claimed the studies are flawed.

Furthermore, direct observation by Krutz, in Germany, back in the 1930s, showed atmospheric levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in excess of 400 ppmv. He was not alone, there is a large collation of such studies by Beck.

Look at the data…except the NOAA fudged data. If you see anything from NOAA, ignore it, the data has been fudged using a climate model. Same with NASA who get their data from NOAA, while ruining the good name NASA has acquired due to it’s space technology.

The IPCC, the so-called authority on climate, who is behind the current hysteria, claimed in 2013 that no average warming had occurred during the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012. UAH claims the same but have extended it to 2015, some 18 years.

The data plainly shows that no global warming has happened since 1998 except for the brief warming shown by the 2016 El Nino. We are waiting to see whether it cools off enough to keep the trend flat.

Gordon, you understand very little science, by your own admissions, and yet you have the audacity to come here and insult professional scientists who dedicate their careers to obtaining and interpreting data.

You should be ashamed of yourself for insulting them so cavalierly, and you should spend the time you spend commenting here learning some actual science and reading these scientists’ papers.

You’re so arrogant and ignorant at the same time. Just like Donald Trump.

DA…”Gordon, you understand very little science, by your own admissions, and yet you have the audacity to come here and insult professional scientists who dedicate their careers to obtaining and interpreting data”.

You are about as stupid as you are naive. NOAA rushed out a fudged paper to support the Obama climate hysteria contravening their own guidelines for posting papers.

The fact that the paper was accepted so quickly proves the peer review system is corrupt. Roy or John at UAH could not get a paper accepted and published that quickly.

I imagine the increase has to do with the final demise of the remnants of the winter La Nia and the slow birth of the coming El Nio later this year. Once El Nio begins I expect temps to remain elevated until ENSO cycle returns to neutral.

And the atmosphere isn’t as particular as NOAA. There’s a big difference between borderline La Nina (-0.5 C) and borderline El Nino (+0.5).

And like I mentioned, region 1+2 and the surrounding viscinity, which is not included in the ONI index, was very, very warm during late winter. If I remember right, it reached an anomaly of more than +4.0 C

Bob thinks the area is so small its global influence is like “pissing in the ocean”. I would agree if the anomaly had not been so exceptional.

I love how the warmists are going on about this one month temperature anomaly when it’s the yearly trend that matters more in the climate system. The red line is still pointing downwards indicating that we are still in a long term decline. I love how after trump removed the US from the Paris agreement the media especially weather.com started going all out rapid fire trying to jam as much climate change propaganda in one day as possible down everyone’s throats because they don’t want people to fall for what trump said and change their minds about climate change. One month anomalies mean nothing for climate unless they are drops in temperature defying what the warmists say about us driving climate change since we are naturally in a warmer climate regime and it is more likely to see brief one month recovery upticks in temperature then downward drops.

What people don’t seem to realize is that more co2 actually causes less warming. The faster we release co2 into the atmosphere the faster it gets absorbed by the plants and vegetation. Faster emission into a system= faster emission out thus less residence time in the atmosphere and less co2 remaining in the atmosphere causing less warming then one may otherwise indicate. Even a slower emission scenario causes only 0.03 C warming when considering convective feedback as a dominant feedback in the climate system reducing the temperature gradient even further to what was indicated above as if there was no convective feedback and radiative feedback led the horse battle to establish a new equilibrium level. Since convective feedback operates under much shorter time scales then radiative feedback and helps replace the cooler air underneath the warmer air causing an even bigger albedo affect of more radiation back into space the warming is less. Something the warming models don’t take into consideration. More co2 is a good thing. Even if we didn’t pull out of the Paris agreement it wouldn’t make any significant difference in the climate system

Once again I was referring to MAN MADE EMISSIONS ALONE which compromises 3% of the increased. The overall trend of natural co2 is steadily increasing. Even if we were to stop admitting our co2 emissions all together total co2 wouldn’t blink. it’s totally useless

CO2 has been accumulating in the atmosphere at nearly 3% a year (a little faster recently). And you think only 3% of that accumulation is due to human emissions? Are you sure you’re not confused about this?

Anyway, according to your theory, natural emissions have been too SLOW and that’s why CO2 has been accumulating so FAST! Again, that’s some seriously wacky logic.

Never mind interglacial, we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850.

Of course, diehard alarmists like Appell think the LIA was local, as if temperatures 1 to 2C below normal could exist locally. At the same time, he is quick to point out that the warmest year in the US, 1934, does not apply globally. He offers no proof.

Does anyone have any or many clear evidence that the increased CO2, especially the percent CO2 due to mankind, has a measurable causative impact on global temperatures? That is, besides the nicey nice theory of the greenhouse effect?

The red line is a mere 13-month running average. Spencer is deliberately keeping the period of his running average short, so that he can capture all the ENSO events (which have NOTHING to do with a long-term trend) and maintain the illusion of uncertainty. Try creating a 37-month trend and see what you get.

All the different institutes have different smoothing methods and they also display time series with no smoothing at all, capturing ENSO events in even more detail than the 13-month average above. This complaint is a non-starter.

bob…”The red line is a mere 13-month running average. Spencer is deliberately keeping the period of his running average short, so that he can capture all the ENSO events …”

Grow up. You’re an idiot like the rest of the alarmists who post here. The running average merely smooths the erratic warming cooling averages per month. You don’t like it because it offers a quick visual to support the evidence that no warming occurred from 1998 – 2015.

Anyone who can read a graph, which none of the alarmists can, will see that immediately.

bob…”you hesitate to extend your claim beyond 2015. Is there a reason for that?”

Of course there is. The 2016 EN has produced a short-term trend and we don’t know yet what will happen. I stopped in 2015 to emphasize the lack of trend over the 18 years from 1998 – 2015. I think an 18 year flat trend is highly significant.

I think it’s ingenuous to focus on what is likely a short trend and claim it as proof of an overall trend.

The good news is that the so called modern warming period is now in the process of ending(now through coming years) as solar activity is becoming very weak and will become weaker as we move forward.

I expect global mean temperatures to be at or below 30 year average means within the next 12 months.

I think it is a very low solar/increase albedo /lower overall sea surface temperature play that will result in lower global temperatures as we move forward from here.

Low solar If solar irradiance deceases say by .15% that is a .2c reduction in global temperatures just do to that factor alone.

Increase albedo even a 1/2 of 1% increase will result in a significant global temperature drop. Albedo should increase in response to very low solar conditions which should result in an increase in major volcanic activity , increase in global cloud coverage and sea ice/snow coverage.

Increasing galactic cosmic rays being a main factor for major volcanic activity to increase and global cloud coverage to increase while less EUV light should result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation which would also result in more clouds and also greater snow coverage.

I think at the start of global cooling the atmospheric circulation becomes more meridional only later to transition to a more zonal circulation.

Overall lower sea surface temperatures this should happen as a result of weakening UV light which penetrates the ocean surface to significant depths which should impact the surface ocean temperatures.

ap index 5 or lower but isolated spikes which could contribute to an increaae in geological activity

All of this in combination with a weakening geo magnetic field which should compound given solar effects.

The test is on now that solar is finally reaching my cooling criteria and if global temperatures do not drop despite these low solar conditions I will be wrong, on the other hand if they do I think we will have to conclude that AGW theory is dead.

In the big picture Milankovitch cycles are favorable on balance and the land /ocean arrangements are very favorable for global cooling.

Precession /obliquity Precession very favorable while obliquity is lessening and becoming more favorable as compared to the Holocene Optimum period of time and this is why I think the global temperatures in general have been on a decline overall since the Holocene optimum however with fits and starts due to solar activity changes /volcanic activity and enso superimposed upon this general trend.

NOTE MY SOLAR PARAMETERS ARE JUST NOW STARTING TO BE MET , PRIOR TO THIS TIME 2010-2016 THE SOLAR PARAMETERS WERE WELL ABOVE THE VALUES I SAID WOULD BE NEEDED TO CAUSE A GLOBAL COOL DOWN, NOW FINALLY THIS IS CHANGING.

There is no “if” my friend. Long term Temperatures will continue to decline. A brief warm spike here and there doesn’t mean diddly squat. It is the long term yearly average that we should be more concerned about. Right now it is going downward as the red line indicates. Don’t pay attention to the months. Pay attention to the years especially as we go through 2018. This year will not be the warmest ever and by 2019/2020 the temperature will have decreased so much that this whole man made global warming agenda will stop and the warmists on this comment board will run and hide with embarrassment because they were wrong. Even dr spencer will be shocked considering he is a Luke warmist. Even he may stop posting these temperature anomolies once the cooling starts to become extremely obvious over the next few years. Climate average is measured over years not months.

Depend how you look at it. Right now I am focused on the yearly temperature decline into the new grand solar minimum which should be noticeable to all within the next few years at the latest. As history shows us these drops in temperature tend to happen fairly quickly over a very short time frame. You can cherry pick and draw an upward line from 1978 to now which Marks the end of the 19 year pause by this grand solar maximum but Nature is doing what it always does every few hundred years or so. Look at history. It’s a cyclical pattern that us humans have no noticible control over.

Under radiative heating it is 0.06C by end of century. Since convective cooling operates under much shorter timescales as apposed to radiative heating and acts to replace cooler air underneath the warmer air the temperature gradient is cut in half to only 0.03C before it is further amplified by radiative warming over the long term. Without convective cooling the average temperature of the earth would be about 30C warmer then what it is. More sunlight gets reflected by the cooler air getting replaced underneath the warmer air acting as a reflectant albedo affect.

NOTE MY SOLAR PARAMETERS ARE JUST NOW STARTING TO BE MET , PRIOR TO THIS TIME 2010-2016 THE SOLAR PARAMETERS WERE WELL ABOVE THE VALUES I SAID WOULD BE NEEDED TO CAUSE A GLOBAL COOL DOWN, NOW FINALLY THIS IS CHANGING.

There’s no need to twist the truth – it doesn’t make an already powerful case any stronger. AIUI – and I’m sure he’ll speak for himself – Dr Spencer believes that GW (and I think AGW) is occurring, but not to the degree and without the potentially catastrophic consequences that most of the scientific community forecast.

The media can be absurd. It is hard to explain that a realistic view would consider that we most likely dont underatand the system yet. Maybe in 20 years from now there are sufficient data to characterize the satellite global temp data response to the El Nino global perturbations. Until then there is insuficient sample number to statistically characterize an El Nino event as over because we dont fully understand the lag between the Nino data and the temperatures. There are 10 el nino events (quasi-periodicity of ~4 yrs) in a ~40 year long data set, but only 2 to 4 major El Ninos like this one, and maybe one complete PDO. Uncertainty doesnt sell!

So Dave, you are 100% sure that 2016 El Nino is no longer contributing heat to the UAH global temp data?

15 16 was similar in amplitude to 97 98 except no la nina this time. If it originates as a spike of energy from the ocean then the wavelet in global temperature (in troposphere) could have significant tail if not ended (cropped) by la nina.

Agreed El Nino heat is usually about a zero sum process, except there seem to be jumps in global temperature that occur after some large events.

I am leaning towards this is another jump ending the hiatus but I dont have sufficient time yet to be confident.

I don’t blame the media, I blame the scientist whether that’s Dr Spencer or the supposed 97%. These scientists don’t correct misconclusions (funding, job), they give their own incorrect science a pass, and then still harp on Prez Trump for withdrawing us from a “pact” that had the binding force of a world boy scout meeting.

No, it’s not the Sun. Lower stratosphere has been cooling for decades and that is because of weakening solar activity. Lower troposphere is not responding, in fact, it’s getting warmer. You must be uneducated ignorant say that it is the Sun.

P.S. Sorry, also because of an enhanced greenhouse effect, as confirmed by emission spectra measured from satellites. Keeping more heat from re-radiating warms the lower atmosphere and cools the upper. Obviously enough.

Reptile,
Do you mean it is not total solar irradiance? Because despite the dogma that the sun is understood, the affect of UV spectrum and magnetic field are poorly understood based on peer reviewed literature.

I can’t help but notice that they haven’t even agreed on how much the climate has warmed over the past 120 years. I’ve seen estimates varying from .8 to 1.2 degrees Celsius. I am an environmentalist in some ways, but I’ve seen nothing to convince me that we’re on the road to doom without drastic action.

If you use a least squares linear trend, then the total warming is usually taken to be (slope)*(time_interval). I see (surface) numbers like 0.9-1.0 C for that, among the various groups, probably higher for BEST land temps, which go back even further.

For UAH LT it’s 0.48 C since 12/1979.

But if warming is accelerating, then a linear trend isn’t best. What to do then?

So the numbers are going to vary depending on how one calculates it and what dataset is used. The time spans of the datasets aren’t all the same either.

Also Dave just like linear might be wrong for exponential or whatever patterns, starting points are very significant if there is any sine pattern superimposed into the data. Even a weak amplitude can bias significantly if u measure peak to trough vs zero point to zero point regarding the sinusoidal component.

I say this because the hiatuses need work. They define the stair step pattern. Should not measure a trough to peak, and there maybe larger naiosy periodicities invoved. These show up in very long data like tree rings or stalagties where there is sufficient sampling number to see the signal from noisy climate data.

That’s often what I hear when looking for explanations as to why the climate hasn’t warmed to the degree alarmists claimed it would. And I got the 50% from the pre-industrial level of 270PPM. We’re currently around 403-405PPM.

And if the claims by many of these activists are correct… then we’re screwed. We’d never be able to reduce emissions fast enough to make a difference. Levels are plateauing but they aren’t dropping since efforts in the west are being offset by increases in the developing world, mostly China and India.

Its starting to look like 2017 is shaping up to be very warm for an ENSO neutral year. The mean anomaly for 2017 so far is about 0.31 C. The 13 month average has been over 0.2 C for 2 years already and it will remain that high at least for a couple of months more. It looks like the warming trend is continuing.

Cannot the GHE be stated in actual words? It seems that effects such as the Seebeck effect can actually be described without having to use a video. Even something as broad as the photoelectric effect has been written down, I believe.

As to the “AGW” effect, you might describe it as anything you like. Is a recent human contribution to increased greenhouse gases supposed to make thermometers hotter? How would this miracle be performed?

Has it been supported by reproducible scientific experiment? Just saying that you believe in something, doesn’t make it so.

The video you linked to provides graphic evidence that intelligence is no barrier to delusion. You might be aware that the Earth’s surface seems to have cooled several thousand Kelvins over the last four and a half billion years.

Energy out seems to have exceeded energy in, and of course the main source of energy during this period was remnant heat of creation, and radiogenic heat. As Dessler points out, even allowing for the egregious and misleading assumptions he uses, sunlight is not capable of maintaining surface temperatures even at current levels.

Dessler is deluded. His presentation is nonsensical, but I accept that he believes that what he says is true. No doubt Michael Mann also believed he received a Nobel Prize, and Gavin Schmidt believes he is a scientist, rather than an undistinguished mathematician.

Of course …. NOAA and NASA both adjust for the UHI effect.
What ….. you didn’t know they had a downward adjustment.
By comparing US cities to surrounding rural centres I found that there is still a remnant of the UHI effect left in the data. For some cities like Phoenix, there is still a large UHI effect after the adjustment. For many cities, the adjustment has gone too far.

On average, after adjustment, about 0.1 degrees of the rise over the past 50 years is due to the UHI effect.

I don’t believe there is a quantifiable GHE. I guess that makes me an unbeliever.

Who are these skeptics to whom you refer? What are they skeptical about?

If you claimed you could make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and a heat source, but couldn’t back up your claim with a reproducible experiment, I’d probably be skeptical myself. You wouldn’t make such a ridiculous claim, would you?

Some people believe the impossible or non-existent without batting an eyelid. Not a skeptical bone in their bodies! Good for them!

The climate test is now on because we are finally going to have very low solar conditions versus increasing CO2.Test is here, from now over next few years.

If temp . stay at these levels I am likely wrong if they decline from here I am likely correct.

Prior to this time 2010 -2016 we had at least moderate solar activity and increasing co2. No test here.

From 2008-2010 we had very low solar versus increasing CO2 but duration of very low solar was short and followed the recent long active solar period which did not end until late 2005 when the ap index tanked. No test here.

Have you any means of adjusting for changes to overall atmospheric opacity and reflectance?

It’s fairly obvious that any factors such as reducing widespread atmospheric atmospheric particulates, clouds, etc., will result in higher temperatures, by allowing greater insolation to reach the ground.

Anybody who predicts thermometers getting hotter or colder, in a particular area, is making an assumption – which may or may not come to pass.

People who can’t even predict the wind speed and direction, thirty seconds from now, make grandiose claims about their ability to predict the state of the atmosphere years hence.

What a pack of self important fools!

I wish you well with your prediction. I’m fairly certain that tossing a coin would do as well. Too many unknowns, and if chaos is involved, you might as well just give up!

“People who cant even predict the wind speed and direction, thirty seconds from now, make grandiose claims about their ability to predict the state of the atmosphere years hence.”

In physics it’s often easier to predict the path of a system even when you can’t predict the small variations within parts of the system. That’s what thermodynamics is all about, and some fluid flow too, and solid state.

If you stand in a swimming pool you’ll notice spots of warmer than average water, and cooler than average water. Predicting the location and timing of those is an extremely hard problem. But predicting the pool’s change in average temperature is much more tractable.

Projecting long-term climate change is mostly about how much energy is added to the climate system and how it gets distributed between the various subsystems — ocean, LT, stratosphere, land.

But big climate models do a good job of simulating bulk wind flow — see Gavin Schmidt’s TED talk for a good example.

Complete nonsense. Even the IPCC states that future climate states are not predictable.

Of course, the usual crowd of bumbling fumblers (or fumbling bumblers, if you prefer), claim that the future can be predicted. They’re right, of course. Any bearded, balding, bumbling buffoon can predict the future – many do.

They just can’t show that their predictions are any better than mine, for example. They certainly don’t seem prepared to bet their own money on such a contest.

Gavin Schmidt went to water some years ago, when actual money was involved – his personally.

You can’t even say where this GHE can be indepently observed, or how it may be reproduced! Just more witless unsubstantiated assertions full of sciency words – speculation presented as fact – all accompanied by pointless analogies.

Still no GHE!

Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface does not make the thermometer hotter. No amount of foolish Warmist deny, divert, and confuse, can make it so.

Mike Flynn. Do a Google search on David Appell…its quite enlightening as to the person you are dealing with. Then stop wasting your time.
I personally wish Roy would give him a read only status here because all that I can see that he does is create argument rather than discussion. He has his own blog that nobody bothers with so instead he comes hear to do nothing more than inflate his own ego.

Actually, at this point I’m far more interested in your motivations and trying to understand where you’re coming from.

Everything you write about the science is hilariously wrong and usually self-contradictory and isn’t taken seriously.

What I don’t get at all is why would someone come here day after day to write the transparently absurd and silly things you do, ignoring any and all replies, contradicting yourself, pretending you never wrote something earlier, repeating the same old boringly silly things time and time again, every day.

Now you indicate continued interest in me. Most puzzling. I thank you for your interest, but I have to say it is not recriprocated in any way. You can continue with your peculiar “gotchas” at your desire, but I really think you might be less than totally satisfied with my responses.

Up to you, of course. I wish you a speedy recovery from your fixation.

Your prediction is likely to be worse than mine in Australia, for example. July is the start of winter.

Foolish Warmist. The point is, of course, that like the average bearded balding bumbling buffoon, you confuse assumption with prediction. Another point is that if your “prediction” is no better than mine, it’s not worth anything, is it?

In fact, of course, the science behind AW has mostly been settled since the 19th Century, and is taught in high schools using straightforward experiments.

Is AW now the PC code for the non-existent GHE? Is the “science” behind AW the same sort of “science” proffered to prop up the non-existent GHE?

What are these straightforward experiments that demonstrate AW? If Elliott can’t clearly explain how AW is observed, and how it may be reproduced, talk of experiments is just a foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse, isn’t it?

So many questions. So few answers. Still no useful description of the amazing GHE. It’s claimed to be an effect of some sort, but nobody can actually describe it!

Yes, they were posted. I saw them on the site after posting them. Roy even deleted his own comments — they were about his 1997 BAMS paper on water vapor. And I posted a link to his previous thoughts on water vapor, blogged about three years ago.

“The thing is, it is now fairly well established that ice-shelves buttress the neighbouring ice shield on land, preventing it draining so fast.”

This is about as silly as claiming the sea stops rivers from flowing faster by “pushing back”.

An ice shelf is floating ice. It doesn’t push on anything. It floats. It bobs up and down on the surface. It flexes with the tides. When it gets pushed out to sea far enough, it will break off. If currents take it to warmer climes, it will melt. No change to sea level at all. It’s just floating water.

But what the heck! Let’s all panic – glaciers flow, and ice floats! We’re all doomed!

Meaningless?? You think it is meaningful to compare single years to 1998 without considering the surrounding years?

NOAA publicly display a graph of global temps that has no smoothing. According to you, this is scurrilous because it emphasises individual years (like ENSO years).

I’m saying that if you chastise Dr Spencer for his 13-month smooth, be consistent and chastise NOAA under the same rubric – “with the deliberate purpose of including ENSO events which have nothing to do with the long-term trend.”

Come off it, Barry, NOAA is a sick joke. How can any scientists have the arrogance to go back and change existing data because they ‘THINK’ it is wrong? Not only that, they do it using a climate model to regenerate synthetic data after slashing real data.

“And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a perfect storm, a global cataclysm, are assembled. Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.”

It certainly seems as though James Hansen doesn’t understand that climate is the average of weather – nothing more, nothing less. Nothing like a good “global cataclysm”, due to “amplifying feedbacks” operating on a numerical average! It seems that Hansen’s definition of “soon” is flexible – undefined, but certainly more than 8 years.

13,000,000 km2 recently, doesn’t seem to fit the definition of “ice free”, either. What a Wally!

Firstly, he is only claiming an ice free Arctic for SUMMER.
For the sea ice, that means SEPTEMBER – the months of least ice.
The 13 million square km was for mid May, so 4 months too early.
At the absolute minimum, 60% of that will be lost by September.

Secondly, “ice free” is defined to be less than one million square km. This is to allow for ice inside bays which is more resilient but doesn’t affect ship passage.

And typical effing denier who thinks “soon” means within a decade.
Try to get a handle on geological time scales.

Can you not read what Hansen wrote, or do you think he is so incompetent that he didn’t mean what he wrote?

First, ice-free means ice-free. Free of ice. He didn’t write anything about less than one million square kilometres of ice. In any case, not even your foolish Warmist redefinition of “ice-free” has been met to date. Anything that hasn’t happened yet is still fantasy.

Second, your attempted redefinition of “soon” is just foolish. To a foolish Warmist, “soon” may mean any time in the next billion years or so. To a normal person, the meaning of soon as ” . . . in or after a short time.” precludes geological time scales, in general usage. You haven’t even provided a foolish Warmist definition of “soon”, have you?

Foolish Warmist. You can’t even clearly state where the GHE can be observed, or how it can be reproduced, can you? Neither can anybody else!

No GHE. CO2 does not make thermometers hotter. Never has, never will. Hansen is a delusional carbophobe.

Thanks for your advice on geological time scales. I’ll ignore it, as I probably know more about geology than you are ever likely to, even in your wildest fantasies.

Alarmists usually omit the fine print, suggesting it means year round, They fail to reveal that an Arctic with no or little Sun for several months of the year is going to freeze over, global warming or not.

There are far too many people in this world, including politicians, who are willing to accept pseudo-science as the basis of their beliefs.

Mike…”Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes”.

Hansen is a complete looney if he thinks feedback causes amplification. That pseudo-science is rampant in the climate sector.

If you have a public address system and the microphone is located too close to the speakers in a direct path you get the well known positive feedback that renders itself as an ear-numbing screech. If you turn off the amplifier it stops instantly.

Positive feedback does NOT cause amplification, feedback is part of an amplifier circuit, not the amplifier itself.

The only known natural positive feedback is the mechanical resonance that destroyed the Seattle-Tacoma suspension bridge. There is no similar positive feedback available in the atmosphere.

Hansen is hung up on Carl Sagan’s theory that Venus developed it’s atmosphere from a runaway greenhouse effect. He has been proved wrong. The surface temperature of Venus at 460C is far too hot to have been cause by a runaway GHE.

Hi Roy. Thanks for the prompt update. Look forward to it each month. I just wish it could be attached as an extension to the most accurate ballon data (in another graph linked on your site) so we can get a longer picture of tropospheric temperatures. If ballon data is only available in limited areas of the globe then maybe your own data could be seperated to align with what was previously available.
If this has already geen done could you please direct us with a link.
Thanks again.

This might be a dumb question, but has any scientist or scientific organization run a controlled experiment?
Can it be done, setting up controlled, contained atmospheres where we expose varying atmospheric mixes next to each other in various parts of the globe and adjust some of them on a regular basis to change their CO2 percentages up and down and neutral to actual atmospheric mix?
Say this was done across globe in differing hemispheres at different altitudes, in the Arctic, on the side of Kilimanjaro, in the jungles etc… etc. What if the cost over say 5 years was even a $billion or $10 billion? Relative to to the world spending trillions or doing nothing, such an experiment might actually tell us the truth.

Way way too many variables to account for. The best we can do is continue observing, and study the forces behind what we believe is causing the warming. Our planet’s climate works as one big machine. I imagine it would be near impossible currently for us to account for all the factors contributing to our reducing global temperatures.

“Way too many variable..” That’s the point. Eliminate the variables except for the CO2. If other variables cause climate change, then what good is it to just focus on CO2?
If identical contained atmospheres about the planet stayed the same except for CO2 content, and we adjusted CO2 content regularly among them and say the average temperatures among them didn’t differ, would this not prove that CO2 has no effect? Or if where CO2 content was higher no matter where about the planet and that atmospheric containment always had a higher temperature, would not that prove that adding CO2 increases temperatures?…
I understand the difficulty of designing such an experiment, but surely someone else has had this idea and attempted it, right?

It’s not just simply increased C02, it’s the feedbacks and effects associated with it. In isolation the GHE has been demonstrated to be small, if I remember correctly, but the AGW theory also relies on increased water vapor in the atmosphere as a main catalyst for the warming. However we are unsure of what other factors, globally, are affected. Also, I don’t think we can make isolated localized atmospheres. That’s why they make models instead, and add variables as they are better understood or discovered.

The way I see it, you prove the point that no one really wants the proof, one way or the other. Yes, I get it. You are saying that other factors plus CO2 affect the equation.
However, 1+b> 1 where be is a positive always. You are suggesting otherwise and that may be true where there are other variables in the equation. If so, then it is also possible that a factor that increases global temperature is just as likely to save the planet as destroy it, correct?
If temperatures would otherwise be falling more rapidly without the additional CO2 or or if other factors in combination cause even higher temperatures, then we don’t know anything yet.

Ryan P…”Its not just simply increased C02, its the feedbacks and effects associated with it”.

It would have to be a positive feedback to create Hansen’s tipping point/runaway greenhouse effect. Positive feedback that enables such an exponential gain require an amplifier. No such amplifier exists in the atmosphere.

martinitony…”This might be a dumb question, but has any scientist or scientific organization run a controlled experiment?”

Not dumb. I think they are afraid to do such an experiment since it will reveal the bad science in their theories.

Tsonis et all did a study of all the oscillations in the oceans and their effect on warming. They concluded that the oscillations interacted according to their phases. When in phase, the planet warmed and when out of phase it cooled.

Tsonis himself wondered why we are wasting time investigating CO2 when we have these natural variables to inspect.

“Biologists and plant physiologists have long recognized the benefits of higher CO2 content in the air for plant growth. Horticulturists and greenhouse growers have used CO generators to enhance growth rates on plants for many years with good results. ”https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment.php

So the experiments are free and on going- and the higher levels of CO2 doesn’t increase the temperatures of the greenhouses. And plants eat a lot of CO2, and it cause their to be shortage of CO2 in greenhouse or as they say above; “Below 200 PPM, plants do not have enough CO2 to carry on the photosynthesis process and essentially stop growing.”

The article appears old and incorrect on number of issues- I quoted merely because it is common knowledge [and very old news] that one adds CO2 in greenhouses for better plant growth. So I guess there millions of commercial greenhouse, they add CO2 as a normal operation- and they would also monitor temperature and other variables related to getting best plant growth. And the industry probably has numerous publications- if interested.

David you can not be serious you were doing fine till you said if CO2 is good for plants why are there no plants on Venus.time for a coffee I think.i will give you the benefit Of the doubt you must be getting tired

Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation.. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.

So David all the fruit and veg growers who use Polly tunnels and green houses with enhanced CO2 up to 2000 ppm are selling an inferior product.as for Venus if you want a list I will start with temperature .I could fill the page. If your in a hole stop digging

I would put lack of water as the top on the list.
I would say need to add more than trillion tonnes of water to Venus, to have any chance of plant growth. Of course one could add a lot less water if you had floating greenhouses.

Looking for amount water on Venus and I get this depressing idiocy:
“This absence is strange, because astronomers think Venus and Earth likely began with similar amounts of water since they are about the same size and formed at the same time (some 4.5 billion years ago). Yet today, Earth’s atmosphere and oceans contain 100,000 times the total amount of water on Venus.”
And Earth has 1.4 x 10^21 kg, so about 1.4 x 10^16 kg
Or about 14 trillion tonnes

I would suppose most of water is bonded to Venus’ atmospheric acid- but not sure they count this, because they wonder where O2 goes, so depressing in that sense, and generally depressing because they assume Earth and Venus had the same amount of water.
It’s generally thought that Earth got it’s water from impactors and plate tectonic activity- bringing water up [or drying the majority of Earth’s mass].
Venus doesn’t appear similar to earth in these respects. And perhaps ALSO, Venus doesn’t have a moon.
And I tend to favor idea that the Earth and the Moon formed from impactor: proto-earth got hit by something about the size of Mars: Earth gain some iron core material with the Moon forming from less iron core material. Also it seems that the large impactor, could been similar to present Mars and/or Ceres- which have a lot of water:
“The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers, around 41 million of which is fresh water. If Ceres’ mantle accounts for 25 percent of the asteroid’s mass, that would translate to an upper limit of 200 million cubic kilometers of water, Parker said.”http://www.space.com/1526-largest-asteroid-fresh-water-earth.html
Or 1/7th of Earth water in Ceres mantle. If Ceres were bigger [or Mars is much bigger] it could as much water as Earth. Or it could be simply addition of a large fraction- Or proto-earth had some, large impactor adds more, the more impactors and Earth tectonic activity give us our water planet.

Or Proto-earth by itself should have had more water than Venus, simply because Earth formed further from Sun than Venus. Or Mars a smaller planet than Venus has more water than Venus [at formation and, now]. Next, no evidence Venus was hit by very massive watery asteroid/comet [btw everything beyond Jupiter is watery, and Jupiter’s moons have more water than Earth- each of them: Europa, Gandymede, Callisto, and Io].

In terms of Venus, first, we know little about it. But we have no clue of the surface age, we noticed a volcano erupting from it recently, and no evidence of plate tectonics, and no evidence of there being any ocean on it’s surface.

A cooling trend nor warming trend will have very little [or nothing] to do with whether the temperature in your desert will break 100 F during the summer.
What would make a slight difference is urban heat island effect [UHI effect]- though it’s largely about night time temperatures.
With cooling trend, one might get more cloudy weather, though you could also have less cloudy weather.

I a few prominent trends in the graph. 1. If you plot a least squares model through all the data there is a clear trend of increasing temperature since the 1970s. 2. If there had been a “warming hiatus”, it’s now finished. 3. The notion of “stair stepping” temperature following large El Nino looks more plausable with each passing month.

It has nothing to do with water vapour in the atmosphere.
During El Ninos the warmer water in the western Pacific is spread more evenly over the Pacific due to (and causing) a weakening of the equatorial trade winds. When a greater surface area of warm water is exposed to the atmosphere, the atmosphere warms.

If there is indeed more water vapour, it is DUE TO the extra heat, not the cause of it.

And the think about water vapour … as more is created through evaporation, heat is REMOVED from the atmosphere. (Not that the change would make much difference.)

bob…”Mr Spencer himself basically told you you were speaking nonsense about this a number of months back”.

I don’t think Roy claimed that water vapour over the Equator had no effect on atmospheric temperature. That is Lindzen’s theory and he teaches atmospheric physics at MIT.

I don’t recall Lindzen claiming it was water vapour alone per se. He referred to thunderclouds which are mainly heated nitrogen and oxygen. It’s water vapour in the air we see when it condenses.

Water vapour itself comprises 1% of the atmosphere on average near the surface but only 0.4% over the entire atmosphere. Phenomena we see as the result of thunderclouds, like tornadoes and hurricanes are certainly made up of far more than 0.4% of the atmosphere.

Global temperatures are influenced by anomalies in the nino region even when we are officially ENSO neutral. The atmosphere doesn’t give a hoot about NOAA’s specific criteria.
Here’s a comment I posted up-thread:

And like I mentioned, region 1+2 and the surrounding viscinity, which is not included in the ONI index, was very, very warm during late winter. If I remember right, it reached an anomaly of more than +4.0 C

Bob thinks the area is so small its global influence is like pissing in the ocean. I would agree if the anomaly had not been so exceptional.”

I should also point out that the different nino regions are just “sample” areas. Anomalous warmth/cooling usually extends far beyond these specific “rectangles”. This is why a tiny rectangle like region 1+2 may have more “global” significance than you think.

Durham Guy…”If you plot a least squares model through all the data there is a clear trend of increasing temperature since the 1970s”.

Since you seem new I’ll offer you some insight.

The UAH graph is based on the global average from 1980 – 2010. The baseline represents the average and anomalies above it are warmer than the average while those below it are cooler.

If you do a statistical average from 1979 – present you will certainly get a positive trend but that trend means nothing. It moves from a negative anomaly region to a positive anomaly region therefore it represents a recovery from cooling for 18 years followed by a sharp warming (1997/98 El Nino) which levels off, followed by the hiatus you mention.

In statistics you must consider the contexts over which your data is gathered. Plotting an average of all data without considering the various contexts tells you nothing.

If you persist in plugging data into a statistical calculator without understanding the contexts you will be in good company with the number cruncher alarmists on this blog.

So the science is settled.if that’s the case what are all these climate scientists doing ?. Why don’t they all just go home? Dr Roy stated.if asked what can cause the warming ? If not Co2 or the GHE ? He said do some digging.the no 1 heat source for the planet is solar.secondary ones are atmospheric friction.plate tectonics.heat from the earth it’s self.ie magma etc.gravity also plays it’s part.as the moon drags oceans.and the sun pulls on the earth.we had untill recently thought that the small ice moons of the outer planets were solid.but recent discoveries have found that at least one has a liquid ocean of water below its frozen surface.how is that possible with no obvious heat source.presant thinking is it is down to gravity stretching the moon as it circles it’s planet on an elliptical orbit similar to that of the earth.which beggars the question ? could that be the source of at least some of the warming of the oceans.as Einstein said all things are relevant.

So Bob the science is settled after all.okay let them go home .after all they have nothing else to do but twiddle their thumbs and pick up their pay cheques.there is none so blind as those who can not see I thought science was a vocation not a hobby.ask Dyson .Hawkins.and all the other great scientists alive today.as for your first comment I bet you can not prove it

Not at all BOb.i have no idea why the climate is changing.my thoughts are the CO2 theory has been done to death.and maybe it’s t!me to look elsewhere.its like the guy that stood in the street watching a fight.and he never saw the car that ran him over

1. That believes the atmosphere is over twice as powerful as the sun (333/161).
2. Where the laws of thermodynamics are thrown out the window, and;
3. Where a majority of proponents (David Appell included) seriously believe the earth transfers heat to the sun.

“OMG he is talking about a *MINISCULE* amount. Everything in the universe warms everything else if you are prepared to go down to the zillionth decimal place.

Let me guess you believe that warm bodies not being able to heat warmer bodies is a concept that also applies to radiative heat transfer?”

Quite apart from your foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and accuse (with a puerile attempt to deliver a bit of gratuitous offensiveness at the same time), you may not be aware that there is no (that’s right – no) minimum change to the inputs of a chaotic system which can determine whether the subsequent behaviour is chaotic or otherwise.

The IPCC states –

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

And of course they are right.

Have you any facts to back up your silly and misleading assertions, or just more foolish Warmist nonsense?

Mike…”The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”.

That admission did not stop the IPCC going ahead and ‘projecting’ long-term climate conditions using unvalidated climate models. You have to read the fine print, they are not ‘predicting’, they are ‘projecting’, another word for wildly guessing.

The hysteria out there today about catastrophic climate change is based on the sci-fi output of those unvalidated models.

Skeptic…”Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”.

Those who get caught up in the pseudo-scientific belief that heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body without compensation don’t understand the relation of heat to energy levels in atoms.

Heat is a lot like electricity in that both are related to valence electrons in atoms. Whereas electrical theory is based on the charge on electrons, which is not the electron mass itself, heat is related to the energy level around an atom at which the electron resides.

When electrons move through a copper conductor they move quite slowly. It is the charge they hold that is transferred as current, electron to electron, moving at the speed of light.

As electrons change energy levels to a higher level, they must acquire energy to make the transition. They can absorb EM from external sources or they can acquire it by energy transfer from another electron.

That change in energy level is called heat. The atom actually warms, by definition, when electrons move to a higher energy level. Conversely, the atom cools when the electron emits EM or gives it’s energy up to another electron.

The energy required to move the electron to the next energy level is the difference in energy between those levels. If incident IR does not have that energy, or the correct wavelength, it won’t affect an electron. That’s why IR from a cooler body cannot affect the energy state in an electron in a hotter body. It simply lacks the energy to be absorbed.

The presumption that EM energy from a cooler body must be absorbed by a warmer body is just plain wrong.

YOU correctly post: “No, the earth does not heat the sun.even a miniscule amount.”

Right. The Earth does not heat the Sun. Again the semantics. The Earth does send energy to the Sun. What happens to this energy?

Scientists find planets around other stars because when a planet goes in front of a star the star dims to a detectable limit. A planet is confirmed to orbit such a star when the dimming follows a cyclic pattern.

So it becomes obvious that because of a planet orbiting a star the amount of energy leaving that system is reduced by the planet (we detect it). What happens to this energy that is not leaving that system? The planet is absorbing it. Then what happens to the energy directed back to the star?

The correct wording is not that the Earth “heats” the Sun. The correct wording would be the Sun is miniscule warmer because of the Earth, not that the Earth is heating the Sun.

I would have to have an explanation for what happens to the energy the Earth emits to the Sun. It is real energy and detectable. Does it disappear in traveling there? I asked you on the other thread and you never supplied an answer so I will ask again.

This equation found in any textbook on the subject:
(P/A) = sigma [(T_h)^4 (T_c)^4] (from a Tim Folkert’s post)

This equation clearly shows a cooler blackbody object surrounding a warmer one will indeed warm it if has a continuous input of energy (like either the Earth or the Sun have).

Any radiating body in the view of another will warm it above a free radiant energy flow state which is the purpose of the minus sign. The energy of the surroundings lowers the energy loss. With the same input energy the object will warm above the condition with no other bodies around.

SkepticGoneWild says:
“No, the earth does not heat the sun.even a miniscule amount.”

Does the Earth emit radiation?
Does that radiation carry energy?
Does the radiation pointing towards the Sun suddenly turn around when it realizes the Sun is hotter?
How does radiation know the temperature of the object it was emitted from?

SkepticGoneWild says:
No, the earth does not heat the sun.even a miniscule amount.

Does the Earth emit radiation?
Does that radiation carry energy?
Does the radiation pointing towards the Sun suddenly turn around when it realizes the Sun is hotter?
How does radiation know the temperature of the object it was emitted from?

Explain.–

Each square meter of sun emits “63 10^6 Wm2”https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/energyfromsun.html
so 63,000,000 and reaches earth distance at 1360 watts
which is .0000021
So 240 watts times .0000021 is .0005 watts.
Now earth reflects about 400 watts per square meter and get back 400 times .0000021 which is .0008 watts.
Oh I forgot, earth is much smaller than the sun- so it’s much less than this.
The earth will have a insulative effect upon the Sun, but it amount to about same a butterfly at 100 meters distance.

Gordon Robertson says:
“Those who get caught up in the pseudo-scientific belief that heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body without compensation dont understand the relation of heat to energy levels in atoms.”

The compensation in the case of the Earth’s climate is the constant input of energy from the Sun.

The Earth simply isn’t an adiabatic system. Hence the stringent condition of the SLOT doesn’t apply.

Dr No sorry for the crap punctuations. I put it down to my cheep tablet.but I Stand by what I said .it will be a sad day any science is settled.ask the guys at CERN. They have set backs disagreements.but keep buggering on .as
Edward Teller said we need more knowledge.silly predantic comments just don’t hack it.

UK Ian…”it will be a sad day any science is settled.ask the guys at CERN”

Are they the ones looking for the Higg’s boson, because they believe it is there but cannot find it?

I think we should stop all this nonsense and return to where Schrodinger left off in 1925, and start again. This time, no imaginary concepts like Big Bangs, black holes, entanglement theory, space-time or Higg’s bosons.

While we’re at it, let’s discard evolution theory and find out exactly what’s going on, if we can. ‘I don’t know’, should be re-instated as viable science.

Apr 2011
TIME WIL PROVE WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG, AND WE SHOULD KNOW BEFORE THIS DECADE IS OUT.

Oct 2012 (referring to massive increase in September)
I thought the [UAH] temperatures were correct before this happened.
[Oh dear he believed they were correct UNTIL they didnt give him what he wanted. Science? Hardly.]
I would bet my last dollar that the temp. will be lower LONG before this decade ends,the only thing that would derail this is if the prolong solar minimum somehow ended.
[19 months certainly doesnt qualify as long. Time to make yourself broke.]
Unlike the AGW crowd I will not spin to make it appear I am right ,(even when I know I am wrong)

Mar 2013 (after temperatures returned to Jan values, blatantly lying about the previous month)
Again as each month passes by, temperatures fail to increase.
Global cooling is coming post 2014. The only question is not if we have global cooling but to what degree.

May 2013
My climate temperature forecast by 2020 will be for the monthly average for the globe to come in at a deviation of -.85c.
PDO should remain in a cold phase.
The Solar parameters needed in order to get the temperature decline I expect are: SOLAR FLUX SUB 72, AP INDEX SUB 5, SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KM/SEC ,AND SOLAR IRRADIANCE OFF BY.2%
I am still however very confident once this max of Solar Cycle 24 passes by, which will be in less then a year that those above parameters will be met for the balance of this decade.
I am going on the record with this. I cant get out of it. It will all be public. If the temp. do not go down and solar conditions attain those levels I am wrong, and I will admit it. I am not going to try to spin out of it.

(Roy Spencer) May 2013
Prediction about the distant future is very easy because no one will remember how wrong you were.
[WRONG]

Jul 2013
This cycle,cycle 24 ,is as weak if not weaker then solar cycle 5 associated with the DALTON MINIMUM.
I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
I say the start of a significant cooling period is on our doorstep, it is months away. Once solar cycle 24 maximum ends it starts.
I say this one 2014- 2050??

Nov 2015
I say the global average temperatures will not be as high during this El Nino event in contrast to earlier recent ones , and after this El Nino event global average temperatures will be lower in contrast to previous post El Nino events.

Jan-Aug 2016
[disappeared completely until anomaly fell to his liking]

“Napoleon therefore ridiculed those who had been attempting to scare him with stories of the Russian winter. The weather remained fine during the first days of November 1812, until 3 November, which was to be the last warm day. The wind turned north and the night between 4 and 5 November brought with it a rapid drop in air temperature. On 6 November the French retreat was entering a new phase. It began to snow, and in short time it lay half a meter thick on the ground. The drop in temperature had not been that great, probably not exceeding -10oC. But the French army was not used to or dressed for cold weather. There was no such thing as a winter uniform, since in those days armies did not fight in winter. The cold also provided the last straw for many of the remaining horses. The meteorological change early November 1812 had a profound effect on the whole French army.
On the evening of 5 December, at Smorgonie, Napoleon decided that it was time for him to go back to Paris, and take control from there. He called together his marshals and apparently apologised for his mistake of having remained in Moscow for too long. He then set off into the night. The Imperial Mameluke, Roustam, later reported that the wine in Napoleon’s carriage froze that night, causing the bottles to shatter. On 6 December the temperature fell even more, reaching -37.5oC according to Dr. Louis Lagneau.

This was the end. On 9 December the main mass of the French army turned up at the gates of Vilnia. Vilnia, however, could not be hold, and the retreat had to continue towards the starting point along the river Niemen. The weather continued bitterly cold, with daytime temperatures around -35oC.
The extremely cold winter November-December 1812, in combination with the previous warm summer July-August 1812 had been devastating for the whole military operation on both French and Russian side, and were to have lasting effects on Europe’s political future.”http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00906/4xsitowwrmg4.pnghttp://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201800-1899.htm#1800-1812; Napoleons new Europe and the French Enlightement

Bob thanks for proving my argument which is in order for solar activity to have a climate impact it has to reach at least Dalton levels of activity and this has not happened except for years 2008-2010 and now in year 2017.

Which means according to my theory no global cooling should have taken place from 2010-end of year 2016 which is exactly what occurred.

Now things are changing and in addition this weak period in solar activity is following over 10+ years of sub solar activity unlike the 2008-2010 period and this time duration of low solar activity should be much longer.

Would you agree with my prediction Salvatore that minimum sea ice will continue its recovery during this solar minimum as it did around the last solar minimum because the rate that arctic sea ice melts in summer is likely correlated to solar activity and if that is true then it would explain both the satellite era decline and recent stabilisation of minimum arctic sea ice extent.

NOAA reset the SSTs using the temperature at the water intake of ships, which has a heat island effect. They discarded the tried and trued method of throwing a bucket over the side and measuring the sea temperature directly because it was colder than the water temp at the water intake.

NOAA likes only warm temperatures. They can’t show warming where none exists without fudging.

“It is not possible to give very useful error bars to the estimates. Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a) provide error bars for the TOA radiation quantities, but they are based on temporal and spatial sampling issues, and more fundamental errors associated with instrumentation, calibration, modeling, and so on, can only be assessed in the qualitative manner we have done here, namely, by providing multiple estimates with some sense of their strengths and weaknesses.”

Anyone who reads the paper will find that assumptions derived from guesses underly many conclusions. Useless. They can’t even make a guess as to how far from reality their estimates are!

You do realise they are now using mostly BUOYS, don’t you?
Given that they measure lower temperatures than at the engine intake, perhaps you’d like to share your thoughts on the motivation for THAT change.

It doesn’t seem very logical to let the buoys float along with the current, does it?

They’re just going to measure the temperature of the same water that’s carrying them along. Measuring the same thing for 10 days, but expecting different answers seems a foolish Warmist sort of thing to do.

Quite apart from that, there doesn’t seem to be any effort at all put into ensuring that rising water heated by either thermal vents or the magma continuously injected at the sites of the mid-ocean trenches is avoided.

All in all, a fairly spectacular waste of time, effort, and money – if the aim is supposedly measuring ocean heat content. Such a measurement is pointless and irrelevant in any case. The mantle is not uniformly hot, nor is the crustal thickness under the oceans consistent. The ocean heat content is constantly changing, depending on a variety of factors – probably chaotic, and unpredictable as a result.

Another sciency sounding, but generally useless, exercise. Achieves almost nothing, but at great expense. Typical foolish Warmist Scientism.

Bumbling fumblers, or fumbling bumblers?

Here’s the supposed rationale (from the Argo site) –

“Why do we need Argo?

We are increasingly concerned about global change and its regional impacts. Sea level is rising at an accelerating rate of 3 mm/year, Arctic sea ice cover is shrinking and high latitude areas are warming rapidly. Extreme weather events cause loss of life and enormous burdens on the insurance industry. Globally, 8 of the 10 warmest years since 1860, when instrumental records began, were in the past decade.”

Delusion psychosis, anyone? This is why we “need” Argo?

Luckily, the US only owes 20 trillion dollars. An extra $24,000,000 per annum is neither here nor there, by comparison.

I don’t support your enthusiasm for the Argo program, or the data it produces.

How do you think they managed to retroactively erase the flat trend from 1998 – 2012 announced by the IPCC that NOAA, NASA GISS, Had-crut, UAH and RSS had established? They had to fudge their own data for cripes sakes.

They needed to raise the SST temperature and that’s what they did.

Why are you paying attention to this tomfoolery anyway? The satellites cover the entire ocean surface and 95% of the planet. The sats are showing no warming trend from 1998 – 2015. NOAA found a trend by using scientific misconduct.

Ironically, the sats were launched by NOAA and they ignore their own sat data. What does that tell you?

See the graph in Karl et al, Figure 2b (“With Corrections Versus Without Corrections”) for the temperature data with and without adjustments. Compare the trends corrections REDUCE the long-term global warming trend.

DA…”Notice how carefully GR must choose his beginning and end points, and how he ignores all questions of statistical significance”.

I have covered statistical significance in several posts, there is none. The IPCC gave error margins over the period 1998 – 2012 that could be interpreted as an insignificant warming or cooling. UAH has claimed little or no warming since 1979.

I did not pick the beginning point, that was the IPCC, which is the beginning of theire admitted hiatus period. The end point I picked to exclude the 2016 EN warming because it could prove to be a very temporary warming over the long range or lead to a cooling.

The point I was making is the lack of warming over 18 years which I think proves there is no correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and warming.

If the 2016 warming remains, it will be yet another step increase in the global average that cannot be explained by anthropogenic CO2.

Gordon Robertson says:
“DANotice how carefully GR must choose his beginning and end points, and how he ignores all questions of statistical significance.
“I have covered statistical significance in several posts, there is none.”

I agree — your claims about ’98-’15 are NOT statistically significant.

Operational charts, however, are fairly well showing temperature changes. This is important, for example, for hurricane forecasting.
The charts show clear cooling at mid-latitudes.
In turn, in the equatorial zone, the temperature is high, which generates a high average temperature in the troposphere (higher evaporation between the tropics).http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim_4mfull.html

Since (according to Eq. 10b) the equilibrium GMAT of a planet is mainly
determined by the TOA solar irradiance and surface atmospheric
pressure, the down-welling LW radiation appears to be globally a product
of the air temperature rather than a driver of the surface warming. In
other words, on a planetary scale, the so-called back radiation is a
consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for
it. This explains the broad variation in the size of the observed downwelling
LW flux among celestial bodies irrespective of the amount of
absorbed solar radiation. Therefore, a change in this thermal flux brought
about by a shift in atmospheric LW emissivity cannot be expected to
impact the global surface temperature. Any variation in the global
infrared back radiation caused by a change in atmospheric composition
would be compensated for by a corresponding shift in the intensity of
the vertical convective heat transport. Such a balance between changes
in atmospheric infrared heating and the upward convective cooling at
the surface is required by the First Law of Thermodynamics. However,
current climate models do not simulate this compensatory effect of
sensible and latent heat fluxes due to an improper decoupling between
radiative transfer and turbulent convection in the computation of total
energy exchange.”https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

Totally agree. A change in surface temperature requires a change in the emissivity of the earth as seen from space, and apparently this does not change much. Emitted longwave and reflected shortwave seem to interact to offset each other.

Well Salvatore, the paper linked by ren does say p. 12 the authors haven’t “captured” in their model an explanation for the top post rise in global temperature anomaly lower left to upper right on this site of ~0.7K since 1979 start date.

They suggest other explanations exist for that observed global lower atm. T anomaly:

“Thus, the observed 0.82 K rise of Earth’s global temperature since 1880 is not captured by our model, as this warming was likely not the result of an increased atmospheric pressure.”

Salvatore…”Go to talkblokes talkshop site another interesting theory has come out”.

Read through it to a degree but lost interest when they got into dimensionless analysis and presented time as a dimension.

I found their inference of surface pressure as a driver of atmospheric temperature interesting but why could they not stick to gas laws we know rather than going off into the quasi-science world of models with dimensionless quantities.

What they are proposing smacks of quantum theory and it lacks the ability to visualize what they are talking about. For that reason, I predict their theory will be impossible to follow and won’t be of interest.

It’s not that complicated. They describe pressure as being dependent on the motion of atoms/molecules but they missed the obvious, that heat is the energy of those atoms/molecules. Increase the pressure and the temperature MUST rise. There’s your explanation of atmospheric warming.

With solar energy enhancing the speed of the particles while replenishing lost energy, and the pressure provided by gravity, the gases have to warm.

Gordon Robertson says:
“Its not that complicated. They describe pressure as being dependent on the motion of atoms/molecules but they missed the obvious, that heat is the energy of those atoms/molecules. Increase the pressure and the temperature MUST rise”

And in what ways has atmospheric pressure increased in the industrial era?

Gordon Robertson says:
“Its not that complicated. They describe pressure as being dependent on the motion of atoms/molecules but they missed the obvious, that heat is the energy of those atoms/molecules. Increase the pressure and the temperature MUST rise. Theres your explanation of atmospheric warming.”

So how is it that you, an amateur — an a bad one at that — thinks he has found sometime simple that the best minds have missed for 150 years?

Talk about hubis…. You will have to do a lot better than this, Gordon.

I should enumerate the things that are thought to influence surface temperature in addition to Milankovitch cycles, i.e. cosmic rays, tidal effects, volcanism, meteor strikes. To these might be added internal oscillations such as ENSO, AMO, etc, for which causes are not completely understood. All of these are zero root, which means that effects are temporary. A deviation upward requires an eventual deviation downward which preserves the long term average, although at times they may add to produce an exceptional effect. That there is a long term average is evidenced by the record of life on this planet stretching back billions of years. The effect of CO2 is minimal at best, although there may be a minor effect which would be largely beneficial. In the past there have been times when CO2 has been present in concentrations above 1000 ppm, greatly exceeding our 400 ppm, and life continued throughout.

Given enough time species can move North or South or change altitude as climate shifts.

The three main climate settings for the last two million years have been pre-ice age, with a global temperature of 19C and sea levels about 25M love current levels,; interglacial with 14C temperature and present sea levels and glacial with 9C temperatures and sea level 100M lower than now.

Life has adapted to past gradual changes between these states.

The real question is whether a civilisation can keep functioning while adapting to a rapid 5C temperature change accompanied by a 25M sea level rise.

“The real question is whether a civilisation can keep functioning while adapting to a rapid 5C temperature change accompanied by a 25M sea level rise.”

Civilization can adapt to rapid increase in temperature- they do it every season. Early civilizations [poor and stupid civilizations] kept functioning during fairly rapid rises of temperature and sea levels, and such rises of sea level or temperatures are unlikely [near impossible] if you understand why temperatures and sea levels were rising rapidly during these ancients times.
Generally, civilization seem to have some problems related to global cooling temperatures- some attempt to link empire ending events with cooling periods, and no one associates warming periods with troubling times- quite the opposite.
A warming global temperature would obviously help the two largest countries- Canada and Russia.
During periods of warming or cooling, the tropical regions essentially remain unchanged.
Concerning arctic creatures, particularly the polar bear, this species has existed during periods of much warmer temperatures than we have now, or could have within the next few centuries.
The idea that we could a 1 meter sea level rise within 100 years, is unlikely. And a more than 2 meter rise per century is more unlikely [near impossible].
Anyone planning for more then 50 years in the future is wasting their time. I can waste my time, because no one is paying me for this wasted time. And I think it’s almost possible that within 60 years, we could be getting electrical power from Earth orbit.
The major reason we not currently getting electrical power from Earth orbits, is “mostly” related to the high cost of lifting payload to Earth orbit.
And it should noted that more a thousand of satellites currently in Earth orbit are currently using solar power for their their energy needs and solar power was invented for use in the space environment.
And solar energy does not work for the environment beneath Earth’s atmosphere which rotates every 24 hours- it’s not economically viable. But as said solar energy use in the space environment is selected- because it’s the most viable option [doesn’t require a government subsidy].
So there is real estate in space and you don’t have cover land area which would otherwise have other uses or be a natural environment [there is value having areas not used for any specific human purpose [other having “open spaces”].
One could provide all electrical power needed on Earth surface and be unable to notice the real estate in space being used- without using telescopes- or will have any footprint to speak of.
Things done in space, tend to be ‘global”, harvesting solar energy in space would also be global. Also to would amplify other related activities so become global. The poorest countries in the world are getting their own satellites to lower their own costs. Or entire purpose of having satellites is about lowering cost. So at point of having solar energy harvested to space, other things will have their costs lower by using space environment [for things hardly imaginable today].

So over decades the cost of lifting payloads into space has been lowering in cost, and there is no reason not to expect this to continue. And there is stuff happenning which could make you think it will lower by a lot, soon.
And there is other stuff which could be done which could dwarf even this optimism. It’s the other thing we could do, which makes me think that within 60 years we could get energy from space.

I should enumerate the things that are thought to influence surface temperature in addition to Milankovitch cycles, i.e. cosmic rays, tidal effects, volcanism, meteor strikes. To these might be added internal oscillations such as ENSO, AMO, etc, for which causes are not completely understood. All of these are zero root, which means that effects are temporary.”

How is the smallest of Milankovitch cycles being 26,000 year
[earth orbital percession] considered temporary- it’s not temporary to life of the oldest trees. Also most of Earth surface is ocean, and most volcanic activity occurs under the the ocean and anything warming the ocean depths can’t be associated with the word “temporary” and word “warming”.

“The real question is whether a civilisation can keep functioning while adapting to a rapid 5C temperature change accompanied by a 25M sea level rise”

First, it’s not a real question. It’s a hypothetical, emotional, “gotcha”, based on nothing more than the speculations of a few delusional psychotics, and their gullible acolytes.

In any case, the answer to your “gotcha” is yes, unless you can demonstrate you have superior factual knowledge of the future, compared to myself. Unsubstantiated assertions, backed up by appeals to your own non-existent authority, or the ramblings of a pack of bearded balding bumbling buffoons, are not facts.

gbaikie says:
“Also most of Earth surface is ocean, and most volcanic activity occurs under the the ocean and anything warming the ocean depths cant be associated with the word temporary and word warming.”

Unless that volcanism suddenly increases sharply in the 20th century, it’s been there for a long time and the climate system has equilibrated to it. So it wouldn’t contribute to the ADDED global warming or ocean warming observed.

It’s also a very small amount. Here’s a good back of the envelope calculation to do: Estimate the amount of sea floor through which lava seeps, estimate the lava’s temperature, and then estimate the temperature change it’d cause in the vast ocean volume.

DA…”Except climate is warming about 30 times faster than it did when it left the last glacial period 25,000 yrs ago”.

Warming compared to what? It was 1 to 2C cooler during the Little Ice Age. I know your myopic views have convinced you the LIA was a local phenomenon but there is ample evidence it was global. Even if it was local, how do you explain cooling of 1 to 2C locally?

We have become focused on a warming caused by humans and there is not the slightest bit of hard evidence to back that theory. If the warming is due to natural causes, such as the recovery from cooling obviously caused by a reduction in solar activity during events like the Maunder Minimum (hey Salvatore), then the present warming is normal.

Who is to say there have not been many such cooling/rewarmings over the eons?

“Estimate the amount of sea floor through which lava seeps, estimate the lavas temperature, and then estimate the temperature change itd cause in the vast ocean volume.

Youll get essentially nothing.”

I don’t think Lava is causing warming since the Little Ice age. All I said was that heating the ocean wouldn’t be something you would say “effects are temporary”
And I have no way to estimate it, I can google: amount lava erupted per year and get:
“Global mid-ocean ridge systems (magma and lava): 3 cubic km per year Continental volcanic systems (magma and lava): 1 cubic km per year”http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/eruption-rates

That seems to confirm the idea that one has more in the ocean then compared to land.
As for the temperature, is there any reason that mid-ocean ridge systems erupt cooler or warmer lava.
So specific heat of lava: 0.84 kJ/(kg K):http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-solids-d_154.html
And cooling from say 1000 C to 0 C, so 1000 times 0.84 KJ per kg of lava.
Then density of lava is: Basalt 2.60:http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-11/943417499.Es.r.html
So 2.6 billion tonnes, or 2.6 trillion kg times 3 [cubic km] so 7.8 trillion times 840 KJ is 6552 trillion KJ or
6.5 x 10^15 KJ or 6.5 x 10^18 joules of heat added by the mid-ocean ridge systems to the oceans per year.
Or did this before, recently 2.110^17 Joules is yield of the 50 megaton Tsar Bomba Or amount energy from sun in one second is 1.710^17 Joules.
As said before it would take about 28 million Tsar Bomba
to heat ocean by 1 C.
And so 3 cubic km of Lave equal to 65 / 2.1 which is 31 Tsar Bomba of heat, so a bit more than 1/millionth of a degree of added temperature of entire ocean by the lava from mid-ocean ridge systems per year.
Or in one thousand years the 3 cubic km of lava per year adds 1/1000th of 1 degree to ocean average temperature.
Of course the 3 cubic km of lava is not all the volcanic heat which is warming the ocean.
And getting back to “effects are temporary”, it reasonable to “allow for” this heat to stay in the ocean for a time period of 10,000 years rather than 1000 or 100 years.

Or IF mid-ocean ridge systems are on average erupting 3 km cubic per year for 10,000 years it would add about 1/100th of one degree to the ocean average temperatures. And if want longer term effect, it would get complicated- or you would have to model it, etc.
But as mentioned before [elsewhere], such heat generation might be more significant in terms of causing oceanic mixing- or 31 Tsar Bomba exploded in the deep ocean [per year] it might have measurable effect upon the ocean circulation.

gbaikie says:
“I dont think Lava is causing warming since the Little Ice age. All I said was that heating the ocean wouldnt be something you would say effects are temporary”

Unless you can show that this warming started in the last few decades (not very likely, since there are banded iron patterns on the seafloor rifts going back many hundreds of millions of years), then it can’t be responsible for modern warming.

gbaikie says:
I dont think Lava is causing warming since the Little Ice age. All I said was that heating the ocean wouldnt be something you would say effects are temporary

Unless you can show that this warming started in the last few decades (not very likely, since there are banded iron patterns on the seafloor rifts going back many hundreds of millions of years), then it cant be responsible for modern warming.-

I dont think lava erupting from the million degree temperature of the Earth., he was apparently quoting that Wtless foolish Warmist, Al Gore its referred to as irony, by some.–
Yes, the number I actually used was 1000 C for the lava, had I used Gore’s number [several million degrees] the 3 cubic km of lava erupting from “the global mid-ocean ridge systems”, then the oceans would been boiling in short time period- case closed, science is settled, we all gonna to die!!
LOL

gbaikie says:
“…had I used Gores number [several million degrees] the 3 cubic km of lava erupting from the global mid-ocean ridge systems, then the oceans would been boiling in short time period- case closed, science is settled, we all gonna to die!!”

Can you prove this, or try with at least a back of the envelope calculation?

Use the heat capacity of water — as a function of pressure, if you want — and the ocean’s mass of 1.4e21 kg.

–gbaikie: Also, when did this lava start oozing out of the sea floor? Just since the onset of the industrial era?

Thanks.–

Not sure precisely when the onset of the industrial era was.

Let’s see, it’s called the industrial revolution, meaning it was a dramatic change and here it says:
“In the mid-18th century, in the Midlands of England, one of the most momentous transformations in world history began to unfold. The Industrial Revolution was the most profound technological development since the beginnings of agriculture 10,000 years earlier. Like the development of agriculture, it caused a new and far more complex way of human life to evolve.

Why did this profound transformation begin in Britain rather than somewhere else? France was a larger and more populous country. China had a larger manufacturing base and a much larger economy. Indias cloth industry was so efficient that the British Parliament banned imports from there to protect domestic cloth manufacturers.”
Later on:
“With cheap energy, the British economy began to grow much more quickly than those of its European neighbors. Before the Industrial Revolution, economic growth seldom exceeded 1% a year. At that rate, an economy could double in size in 72 years. With cheap steam power, the British economy began to grow at perhaps 4% a year.”http://www.barrons.com/articles/how-the-industrial-revolution-started-1423887383

Main thing a technology development, steam power, which led to higher economic growth.

And with US it started about one century later, and with China roughly a bit more than 1 century after the US.
So imagine you mean for country of Great Britain?
And about 1750?

As for lava oozing out of ocean floor, well I think a key part is bit about Mid-Ocean Ridge systems and this is specific part of ocean floor:
“The mid-ocean ridge system is the most extensive chain of mountains on earth, but more than 90% of this mountain range lies in the deep ocean. The mid-ocean ridge wraps around the globe for more than 65,000 km like the seam of a baseball.”
And:
“Mid-ocean ridges are geologically important because they occur along the kind of plate boundary where new ocean floor is created as the plates spread apart. Thus the mid-ocean ridge is also known as a “spreading center” or a “divergent plate boundary.” The plates spread apart at rates of 1 cm to 20 cm per year. As oceanic plates move apart, rock melts and wells up from tens of kilometers deep. Some of the molten rock ascends all the way up to the seafloor, producing enormous volcanic eruptions of basalt, and building the longest chain of volcanoes in the world! The molten rock that does not erupt freezes onto the edges of the plates as they spread apart. In 1783, a segment of the ridge which emerges above sea-level in Iceland erupted more than 12 cubic kilometers of lava”http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05galapagos/background/mid_ocean_ridge/mid_ocean_ridge.html
So what we talking about shouldn’t count the 12 cubic km of lava which erupted in Iceland and killed more than 10,000 Icelanders [a quarter of their population]. But does mention it occurred in 1783, I would guess well before 1750. I think the island of Iceland was made from Mid-ocean ridges [and geologically speaking, recently].

gbaikie says:
had I used Gores number [several million degrees] the 3 cubic km of lava erupting from the global mid-ocean ridge systems, then the oceans would been boiling in short time period- case closed, science is settled, we all gonna to die!!

Can you prove this, or try with at least a back of the envelope calculation?

I did for 1000 C lava, several, say, 3 million degrees lava doesn’t make sense- as it would be lava in some kind plasma state and I doubt anyone ever measured lava in plasma state. But, Google: lava plasma state specific heat.
Yummy, googling stuff:
For example, at low temperatures an iron plasma may be almost completely neutral, but at a high temperature it may consist of significant fractions of Fe19+, Fe20+ and Fe21+

. These can be solved for using the Saha-Boltzmann equation or a collisional-radiative model.

I cover most of what I say in my PhD thesis, which is freely available here and which contains further references should you be interested: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/13357/ All the formulas are explained in detail there. Chapter 3 and possibly 4 are the most relevant. Also note that within there, I use plasma physics units conventions (explained in the Appendix) where kB=1, so temperatures are in electronvolts.
…
So in summary, a plasma would have a higher heat capacity than an equivalent un-ionized gas (if that were possible), since there are more particles (free electrons) and an energy cost of ionization. ”https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327231/heat-capacity-of-plasma

maybe interesting, but let’s just times it by 3000 or since lava at 1000 C was 1/millionth of degree per year, lava at 3 million it would 1/333 of degree per year.

This far more warming of the ocean then could be caused by global warming. The science is settled, Global warm is gonna to kill everyone, and 3 million degree lava will kill everyone else. It’s worse than we thought!

But reminds me got to look at latent heat-“These numbers are only approximate. The actual specific heat and latent heat of fusion for lava varies depending on the mineral composition. In his piece Cooling the Lava, John Mcphee gives a figure of 1.7 kg of lava cooled per 1 kg of water. My calculations show 2.7 kg of lava cooled per 1 kg of water. The range of values I found for specific and latent heats of magma would explain this difference. Also the crystallization process for lava in more complicated than this model shows.”http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2005.web.dir/Philip_Fitzgerald/physics.htm
Hmm: Totals
4 x 10^26 ergs
[or 4 x 10^19 joules]:http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ears5/handouts/heat.html

I said 6.5 x 10^18 joules of heat [not including latent heat] 40 / 6.5 is a factor of 6, too low
So accordingly it’s 1/54th of degree per year rather 1/333 of degree- again, worse than we thought.
Or something like 3 degree of ocean warming since 1750.
So all present ocean heat done by volcano god because man is being bad!

“Its also a very small amount. Heres a good back of the envelope calculation to do: Estimate the amount of sea floor through which lava seeps, estimate the lavas temperature, and then estimate the temperature change itd cause in the vast ocean volume.”

Of course, you haven’t actually done the calculation, have you?

Here’s a fact for you. The oceans haven’t frozen. They can’t. They are separated from the mantle by maybe 10 kms of rock – a relatively poor insulator – from the hot mantle – 500 C to 900 C or greater.

Abyssal sea water at its maximum density is around 2 C, which is why it sits on the bottom. Basic physics determines why this is so. The continuous heating of the ocean from below is responsible for convective processes which drive the deep ocean currents. Not wind, not sunshine, not CO2. Many of NOAA’s brightly coloured cartoons are fantasies, showing less dense water sinking, and more dense water rising to the surface, amongst other pieces of inspired silliness.

Observing reality is superior to back of the envelope calculations which you either haven’t done, or have managed to come up with a completely erroneous or misleading answer!

“Does the radiation pointing towards the Sun suddenly turn around when it realizes the Sun is hotter?”, aiming for a “gotcha”. Failed again!

So what happens to photons from a colder body when they come upon a hotter one?

Quite simply, indistinguishable from zero or nothing at all.

Experience this yourself. You are being subjected to literally uncountable numbers of photons “colder” than you, right now, and your interaction with them is indistinguishable. Radio waves, for example, are lower energy photons than, say, visible light, but are light in the physical sense nevertheless.

If you have a radio, you can detect the presence of these by using your radio to selectively access the various wavelengths of these photons. Each tuned station is interacting with photons of a specific energy level. You can stand in front of your radio, and the photons will merely pass through you. These photons are emitted at a much lower “temperature” than visible, or infrared light. You are much “warmer” than them. No practical interaction with the infinite number of photons passing through you at any instant.

Or try a microwave, if you want to see how photons of a relatively narrow waveband interact with different things. Put water in your microwave oven and heat it. Easily heated to boiling point! Try putting the same quantity of dried peas in. If perfectly dry, it probably won’t heat at all. 1000 W of photons are ignored. Don’t keep it up too long! Your microwave magnetron may overheat due to impedance mismatch. Not good.

Wattage may mean absolutely nothing. Climatologists in general seem fairly ignorant of such things.

Still no GHE. Just can’t happen – CO2 has no miraculous heating effect. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface does not make the thermometer hotter.

Maybe you could actually quote me exactly, and indicate why you disagree with what I say?

Youve changed the subject beyond recognition deny, divert, and confuse, yet again.
If you are trying to say that sunlight of around 250 to 3500 nm is “colder” than my 9350 nm approx temperature, you’re deluded.

Your IR of 10 microns does not interact with my slightly “warmer” body – it is comprised of less energetic photons. It is the peak emission wavelength corresponding to less than 17 C. Surround yourself with as much matter at 17 C as you like. What has happened to those uncountable 10 micron photons being emitted? Did they interact in any significant way with the electrons of any matter hotter than 17 C?

Light is light, regardless of wavelength. Einstein received a Nobel Prize for Physics for showing that thinking such as yours is, in fact, incorrect.

Maybe you might care to address what I wrote, rather than what I didn’t.

I have obviously not explained quantum electrodynamics to your satisfaction. I apologise. Maybe you could let me know what you don’t understand about photons remaining unchanged, if they do not interact with an electron.

I assume you are aiming for a “gotcha”, but I accept that you may truly be ignorant, and trying to learn. Could you let me know what efforts you have made to find out the answer to your question? I assume you’ve made no effort at all, but I could be wrong.

If you think I’m wrong, you could quote me exactly, and explain why – supported by fact. If you wish to, of course. Your choice.

The foolish Warmist ploy of deny, divert, and confuse doesn’t seem to be working as well as it used to, does it?

If you disagree with something I said, it might promote your cause better if you could provide some facts to support you. Demanding answers to silly “gotchas” is fairly pointless, except to other foolish Warmists.

You still don’t appear to have located your missing clue, and remain clueless to date.

Carry on, David. With just a little more effort, I’m sure you can achieve a level of foolishness which other foolish Warmists can only aspire to!

“When combined with computer model simulations, paleoclimatic reconstructions are used to test hypotheses about the causes of climatic change, such as greenhouse gases, solar variability, earth’s orbital variations, and hydrological, oceanic, and tectonic processes.”

Dreams and fantasies. Climate is the average of weather. It controls or determines precisely nothing. It’s the average of historical observations. These fake scientists couldn’t even define the climate of California, could they?

No science. No GHE. Just wishful thinking, driven by deep seated delusional thinking.

“Gordon Robertson says:
The presumption that EM energy from a cooler body must be absorbed by a warmer body is just plain wrong.

Then where does the energy emitted from the cooler body go, when directed toward the warmer body?

Ive asked this innumerable times here, and no one ever has an answer.”

David is far too lazy to find the answer for himself, obviously. It is any wonder that nobody is inclined to spoon feed him? Just like a petulant spoiled child, screaming to be fed, that same child spits out food offered to it, demanding something different. And so on, to infinity!

He wasn’t happy with my answer, so he changed the question. Foolish Warmist! And still no GHE!

Thick as a brick when it came to radiative transfer.
He could never explain how a “warm” body could distinguish between incident photons from a cooler or warmer source.
Nor what happened to them if they were “denied entry”.
Try learning about the Planck function for a start.

David Apple:
To the honorable golden Apple otherwise referred to as the yapping mouth:
Time to put up or shut up.

Time to explain the Paleo-history of millions of years where CO2 was over ten times current levels but T was about the same. Explain why CO2 lagged T.

Time to explain the variations of T in the Holocene when CO2 was meant to have been stable viz.

The Climate Optimum , Minoan, Roman and Mediaeval warm periods transitions in and out.
Explain the LIA and the emergence.
Explain the dramatic warming period to 1945 with little CO2 change.
Explain the reduction in T from there until the late 1970’s when the great PDO shift took place.
Explain the much reduced rate of T increase from 1995 to now despite all the CO2 spewed out.

Time to explain the Paleo-history of millions of years where CO2 was over ten times current levels but T was about the same.

Apples and oranges. Millions of years ago the Earth continents were in different places, producing different albedo. The sun was cooler.”
More like tens of millions of years ago. And location of continents tens of millions of years ago would have little effect upon albedo. Though a bigger effect upon global ocean currents. In terms surface albedo effects, the most important region would be the tropics [where most of the sunlight arrives on Earth].

gbaikie says:
More like tens of millions of years ago. And location of continents tens of millions of years ago would have little effect upon albedo.

No. The Suns irradiance has been increasing by 1% about every 110 Myrs. Do the math.–

10 million = about .1 %
I am not going to make the argument that the sun output stays constant at +/-.01 % for even 1 thousands year.
I mean I think there some merit to idea of lower solar output during the Little Ice Age [+200 years ago] and I’m interested in what will happen with coming period of predicted “lower activity”.
I have wondered for quite some time, what a space rock the size [or much larger] than the one that hit Earth about 75 million years ago, would do in terms affecting the sun were it impacted. Sun is probably the most impacted body in our solar system [or maybe Jupiter has about same or more, which segue ways to the recent impact event of Jupiter [Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 struck planet Jupiter in 1994]”Within a few minutes the impact site rotated into view, and we were all stunned to see photos showing a vast scar from the collision. The first piece (Fragment A) was about 2 kilometers in diameter and moving at 60 kilometers per second when it hit Jupiterthe energy equivalent of over a million one-megaton nuclear bombs exploding at the same time.”http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/07/16/shoemaker_levy_9_20_years_later.html
Couple notes, it was only 2 km in diameter and it only hit Jupiter at velocity of 60 kilometers per second. it’s fast for hitting Jupiter with escape velocity of 59.5 km/sec, Sun has escape velocity of 617.5 km/sec, so anything [even vaporized gas] hitting the sun’s surface would be going 10 times that velocity- so, KE = 1/2 mass time velocity squared.
60 x 60 vs 600 times 600 or 100 times more kinetic energy for same mass. Though 2 km diameter rock hitting the Sun might be interesting- something we might see in our lifetimes, but in terms of affecting the Sun, I am thinking of rocks 10 km or larger. Earth has been hit by 10 km diameter or larger [most recently killed Dinos] but over Earth’s history- say last 3 billion years, Earth has been hit by many 10 km diameter rocks [and ones larger], and seems to me the Sun been hit as often [or more] than Earth- not because of it’s gravity as much as sheer size- rather it’s the gravity of planets like Jupiter which causes it to hit the Sun. Sun gravity only means that if it hits the sun, it must hit it at +600 km per second.
Well, let’s google: biggest object ever seen to hit the sun
And got this:
“If a comet is big enough and passes close enough, the steep fall into the suns gravity would accelerate it to more than 600 kilometres per second. At that speed, drag from the suns lower atmosphere would flatten the comet into a pancake right before it exploded in an airburst, releasing ultraviolet radiation and X-rays that we could see with modern instruments.

The crash would unleash as much energy as a magnetic flare or coronal mass ejection, but over a much smaller area. Its like a bomb being released in the suns atmosphere, Brown says. The momentum propelled by the comet could even make the sun ring like a bell with subsequent sun-quakes echoing through the solar atmosphere.

Brown acknowledges that the work is speculative both in the sense that a sun-plunging comet hasnt yet been seen and in the physics that would determine its fate. One issue that could make a big difference is the poorly understood propensity of comets to break up under stress.

I wasn’t thinking of it being once a century- more like tens or hundreds of centuries but it’s the quake rather than the flash which might be more interesting.
And I thought smaller ones have hit- only video which showed up in search and I think might not be an actual physical hit of the atmosphere [oh, it could been a bounce off the atmosphere- maybe]

Time to explain the Paleo-history of millions of years where CO2 was over ten times current levels but T was about the same.

Apples and oranges. Millions of years ago the Earth continents were in different places, producing different albedo. The sun was cooler.”

Tens of millions of years ago. And sun wasn’t cooler.
Sun about same for last billion years, Paleo-history is mostly about last 1/2 billion years.
I should note that continent alter their location relative to the sun, by earth’s changing of it’s orbit, and this occurs on timescale as little as 100,000 years [or less]. And has greater effect [particularly regarding albedo] than changes in continents from plate tectonic within last 10 or even 20 millions years.

gbakie, the original post referred to CO2 levels 10 times greater than present. Though they said this was “millions” of years ago, the most recent period that was true was 400,000 years ago, when the sun was 4% dimmer.

Time to explain the Paleo-history of millions of years where CO2 was over ten times current levels but T was about the same.

Apples and oranges. Millions of years ago the Earth continents were in different places, producing different albedo. The sun was cooler.

You’re on better footing asking about climate change over the past few thousand years (or even over the last million). Tectonic state of the Earth is much the same for that period, and solar output is little changed, too.

While natural fluctuations are expected, there’s no reason to assume previous warm periods were as hot, nor that global temperatures rose as fast.

People here think the thermometer record is to patchy for a global average.

No doubt they’ll be right along to confirm that they think much more sparse proxy data could in no way give you a decent global average…

I know I shouldn’t waste time on anything related to wattsupwith but..
If you believe that volcanoes and ozone affect climate, then the climate must be very sensitive since these represent relatively weak forcings.
If it is so sensitive, then it is also sensitive to greenhouse gases are demonstrably more powerful.
Therefore they are more effective at warming the Earth.
Therefore, using your own arguments, I have won the challenge.
Please forward my $10,000.
(and make it quick. $US are likely to devalue soon)

“Accordingly, Peter Ward has issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion.”

Only a Woeful Witless Warmist would claim that arguments are experiments. It seems a characteristic of foolish Warmists that demands for money are made on the basis of unfounded speculation. Bizarre toy computer game results are referred to as “experiments”.

How about I think about $10,000 for you? According to foolish Warmists, fantasy is better than fact. You should be happy now. If you want more, just let me know, and I’ll give it more thought!

Maybe you could think about the GHE. It’s about as real as the $10,000 you think you deserve!

God give me strength!!
The radiative forcings associated with ozone, greenhouse gases, aerosols etc. have all been measured and calculated for decades.
You must be a horse!
I shall henceforth refer to you as Mr Ed.

“Water vapour accounts for about 2% of the Earths lower tropospheric gases.”

Perhaps in the tropics, but such regions are only about 1/2 of surface area of Earth.
Roughly tropics has about 4 times more water vapor than rest of the planet.
But what do mean by lower troposphere and what reference are using.
Or commonly said that were all water vapor to rain out, it would be a depth of about 1 inch, globally.
In comparison were all other gases i atmosphere to condense it would be about 30 feet deep [or 2.5 cm vs 10 meters of liquid- and the CO2 being a few mm]. Anyways, and the lower troposphere could be considered 1/2 the atmosphere [or 1/4 or whatever].

You need be able to read and comprehend; the heating effects are not confined to Ozone alone. Perhaps you could try and explain how earth emerged from the last ice age. Thus far you have found no fault with their findings. They also show CO2 lags T even on a monthly basis so it is hardly a cause.

Further, you need to understand what is a scientific experiment before declaring yourself a winner.

David Appell:
Do you really expect to see much if you continue to keep your eyes closed!? If you got off ur butt and opened your eyes you would find the evidence for these warm periods not being regional.

Do you suggest other regions remained locked up in an ice age? Strange that your hero Mann, the self proclaimed Nobel Laureate, looked at a few trees in one area and claimed it to be NH if not global. No dissent from you and this does not even touch the garbage of his hockey stick saga.

Seems the Laws of Thermodynamics failed in these periods just to satisfy Lord Apple. Do you suggest different T must have been maintained by invisible regional insulation barriers over hundreds of years. Equally, no one claims contemporaneous or equality of T increases. Similarly for the more modern periods.

Re CO2 sensitivity, observations suggest it to be very low or non existent.

The 35 year period to 1945 shows as high a T increase rate as the period from the late 1970’s to early 1990’s (even Phil Jones acknowledged this). If this is mainly due to CO2 it shows a highly sensitive CO2 mechanism as its increase was low to 1945. If not it shows natural variation is more than capable of causing high T increases. Similar rates of increase were observed earlier in instrumental records.

CO2 increases started dramatically with post WWII industrialization yet T decreased quite emphatically. CO2 went to sleep until the great PDO shift in the late 1970s captured in the lower Tropo T graph above to the early 90’s. So the question again arises; natural variation or CO2 for this increase period?

From the early 90’s CO2 has again gone into a slumber as the T rate increase is much reduced. Trenberth stated it was a travesty that it could not be explained and then asserted the heat was being swallowed by the ocean and going into the depths of the deep blue sea. I guess, all ready to come out and bite one on the nose much like a thimble of warm water being dropped in a swimming pool. Could have told him that it was the invisible gnomes shovelling the energy down holes to the centre of the earth and thus bypassing detection by the Argo buoys.

Every failed prediction based on a CO2 hypothesis is testimony to a failed CO2 hypothesis. It is falsified many times over, whether one looks at the over 97% failed models, Hansen’s failed predictions and the like.

I will give Hansen his dues; he did at least quantify his hypothesis and submit it to testing. Other than the FAR predictions, this is one of the few occasions that this field has followed a semblance of the scientific method. Most of it is locked up in consensus scientism. May as well consult witch doctors or the UN, while it asks for $trillions, for the answers.

As usual you still have not addressed any questions asked. As put to Dr No:
Try your luck at getting the $10K money; let us know the outcome.

In terms of your 2.5 W/m2 of LWIR it will do diddly squat in increasing the T of the surface given it can’t increase the T of the surface and given all the options available for heat dissipation to the atmosphere. The atmosphere has no concern for how heat gets there.

If you want to change the surface temperature, either change the surface pressure or change the emissivity as seen from space (good luck with that). Apologies to Dr Spencer who I know is not completely on board with this.

My theory in short, is it is a weak solar/increase albedo/lower sea surface temperature play due to very weak prolonged solar conditions and more importantly the secondary effects that could rise from these very weak solar conditions that could bring the climate to thresholds compounded by a weakening earth magnetic field.

pochas…”If you want to change the surface temperature, either change the surface pressure…”

Ah, good, another person who understands the Ideal Gas equation.

Of course, there are ways to change the surface temperature locally, as we discover each winter as super-cold Arctic air descends on us. Or when weather systems temporarily change the local temperature. On average, however, PV = nRT applies.

“Precipitation is also limited by the influence of polar high pressure. In brief, high pressure is associated with dry climates whereas low pressure with wet climates.”

“Cold air, on the other hand, is more dense than warm air so will sink towards the surface causing an increase in pressure (a region of high pressure). Because the poles are the areas of the globe that are heated least by the Sun, the air overlying the poles therefore descends towards the surface: this is the cause of polar high pressure.”

Who’d have thought? Might all be lies – or might be true. Possibly based on real science?

If cold air creates high pressure, pressure induced atmospheric heat is pure nonsense!

Another quite bizarre and dim witted “gotcha”. In case anyone is interested, liquid nitrogen at -196 C is not noted for its heating properties. It emits infrared radiation. So does ice. I find neither have any particular “warming” effect on me.

David persists in using the word “warmed”. This word is loved by foolish Warmists, because its meaning can be altered at a moments notice. “Warmer than it otherwise would be” is used by foolish Warmists as a synonym for “hotter”, which of course it is not.

Throwing “sciency” words like “infrared” and “radiation ” around does not necessarily mean that foolish Warmists have the faintest understanding of what they are talking about.

Foolish Warmists claim there’s a GHE – although they can’t actually say where this mythical beast may be observed, or what its habits are.

“Are you warmed by the infrared radiation ice emits in your direction?”

Maybe someone else is capable of shining a light into the murky recesses of David’s fantasy, and extracting some clear meaning from his bizarre question.

Is he asking if surrounding myself with ice will raise my temperature? I cannot understand his question – maybe someone can help. Possibly he’s mentally impaired, and cannot write what he means to say?

Lets make it simple for you.
You are standing near a block of ice.
The ice radiates like a black body.
I.e. it is emitting infrared radiation.
Some of that radiation impinges on you.
Assuming you also behave like a black body (no jokes please) then the question is
Do you absorb that radiation ?
or
Do you bat it away somehow because you happen to be warmer?

That’s not the criterion for a blackbody. A idealized blackbody must emit EM at every frequency across the EM spectrum. Ice does not.

To approximate that ideal state you’d need to heat an iron rod till it is glowing white. Calling ice a black body is plain wrong.

As to whether the ice would warm you…no. The radiation it emits would not be absorbed by your skin (if you were alive) since the electrons in the constituent atoms of your skin would be at too high an energy level to be raised to a higher level by the very low energy IR of ice.

As I thought.
“The radiation it emits would not be absorbed by your skin (if you were alive) since the electrons in the constituent atoms of your skin would be at too high an energy level to be raised to a higher level by the very low energy IR of ice.”

Tell me then, how does your skin know where the photons originate from? The radiation emitted from the ice contains no information about the temperature of the ice. i.e. the photons do not arrive at your skin with a little message attached saying:
“I come from a block of ice at temperature zero degrees C. Can I please come in? If you do not let me in, tell me where should I go?”

The radiation simply comprises photons with a range of frequencies (please study up on the Planck function). There is no way of telling where they come from once they are emitted. They could just as easily have been emitted from the sun or a far away star. Your (black skin) absorbs them without fear nor favour.

If you can grasp this simple fact, you are on your way to understanding the GHE.

Jump into a bath of freezing water, topped up with plenty of ice cubes. Lots of infrared being emitted. How stupid do you feel now? If you happen to be stricken with heat stroke by immersing yourself in freezing water, please let me know.

Foolish Warmist!

Still no GHE. Maybe if you took some time to learn some real physics, you might ask questions that don’t make you appear as foolish as those you normally pose.

Mike, really, you’re a smart guy. In calculating the temperature of any object you must account for radiation received from every body in view of that object, no matter its temperature. And, if the ‘sink’ for the calculation is outer space, then a cooler object will cause a warmer object to warm. When you understand this, resume posting.

I hope you mind if I ignore your foolish Warmist command. Foolish Warmists don’t understand that any rational person uses a temperature measuring instrument where practicable. Near surface air temperatures on Earth, for example.

Here’s a small example of how stupid calculations can be.

Assumptions:

The Earth was created in a molten state.
The Earth is still more than 99% molten or semi molten.

Calculating the surface temperature of the Earth will produce a value of around 255 K. Wrong. The surface is everywhere hotter than the highest melting point rock. The first solid rock has not yet formed.

Try again. 255 K. Wrong. Liquid water has not yet appeared anywhere. Actual average temperature in excess of 373 K.

Here’s a couple of things you may try, if you wish. Place a thermometer in iced water. Radiation from all sources is automatically integrated by the thermometer. Try it in direct sunlight if you wish. The thermometer’s temperature doesn’t rise.

Pour yourself a drink at say 25 C or your room temperature (if above freezing). Bung a few ice cubes into it. Calculate the temperature, if you wish. The temperature has fallen, regardless of you thinking that the drink has absorbed radiation from the ice, and the temperature has risen.

If you’re not bright enough to directly quote what I wrote, you’ll probably not need my assistance to appear like a foolish Warmist.

The Earth was created in a molten state.
The Earth is still more than 99% molten or semi molten.
OK. Interesting, but mostly irrelevant to climate.

Calculating the surface temperature of the Earth will produce a value of around 255 K. Wrong.
No — let me fix that. Calculating the steady-state surface temperature of the earth in radiative balance assuming an albedo of 0.7 and an emissivity of 1 and no atmosphere will produce a value of around 255 K.

With an atmosphere, you would use the “top of atmosphere” effective temperature instead of the actual surface temperature to get 255 K.

Furthermore, the fact that earth was once molten on the surface does not invalidate this calculation in the least. This is the temperature the surface will approach as steady-state conditions are achieved. If the surface started warmer, it would cool; if it started cooler it would warm.

Of course, the surface DID start much warmer, so it cooled toward this value. It cooled through all those fascinating ancient eras you mentioned when the earth’s surface was warmer than 255 K — always moving toward the time when (radiation in) would equal (radiation out).

We have now reached the point where the history of the earth as a molten ball of rock is moot. The surface warms and cools as a result of day and night; of seasons; of changes in orbit; of changes in atmosphere. The fact the earth has repeatedly gone into and come out of glacial periods provides multiple examples of uncontested global warming. The earth is not held above 255 K due to the warm interior, nor will the surface continue to cool from current conditions due cooling of the interior.

“Let’s look at the Earth. The Earth has an albedo of about 0.367.[8] The emissivity is dependent on the type of surface and many climate models set the value of the Earth’s emissivity to 1. However, a more realistic value is 0.96.[9] The Earth is a fairly fast rotator so the area ratio can be estimated as 1/4. The other variables are constant. This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252K or -21 C. The average temperature of the Earth is 288K or 15 C. One reason for the difference between the two values is due to the Greenhouse effect, which increases the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.

Also note here that this equation does not take into account any effects from internal heating of the planet, which can arise directly from sources such as radioactive decay and also be produced from frictions resulting from tidal forces.”

“With an atmosphere, you would use the top of atmosphere effective temperature instead of the actual surface temperature to get 255 K.”

Nope. More foolish Warmist nonsense. The fact is that the Earth, being still mainly molten, is still cooling. Redefining the surface to be the non-existent top of atmosphere is just silly. In any case, you will notice that my words (which you at least quoted correctly), did not specify a method of calculation.

Regardless, whichever method of calculation you use is pointless and irrelevant. If you want to establish the temperature of a large ball of molten rock, you use a thermometer. If your calculations differ, your calculations are wrong.

Still no GHE. Complete and utter nonsense. Even David Appell emphatically stated the GHE was only a metaphor. For what, he cannot say.

Lets look at the Earth. The Earth has an albedo of about 0.367.[8] The emissivity is dependent on the type of surface and many climate models set the value of the Earths emissivity to 1. However, a more realistic value is 0.96.[9] The Earth is a fairly fast rotator so the area ratio can be estimated as 1/4. The other variables are constant. This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252K or -21 C. The average temperature of the Earth is 288K or 15 C. One reason for the difference between the two values is due to the Greenhouse effect, which increases the average temperature of the Earths surface.–

I agree, generally, if greenhouse effect includes clouds and ocean [and obviously all gases of atmosphere].

“If you want to establish the temperature of a large ball of molten rock, you use a thermometer.”

Talk about denying, divert, and confusing!

No one here is talking about trying to establish the temperature of the interior of a large ball of rock. Every one here is talking about establishing the temperature of the very outermost surface of a large ball of rock (and the gases immediately adjacent to that ball of rock).

Mike Flynn says:
“Heres a couple of things you may try, if you wish. Place a thermometer in iced water. Radiation from all sources is automatically integrated by the thermometer. Try it in direct sunlight if you wish. The thermometers temperature doesnt rise.”

pochas…”In calculating the temperature of any object you must account for radiation received from every body in view of that object, no matter its temperature. And, if the sink for the calculation is outer space, then a cooler object will cause a warmer object to warm”.

Ever hear of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

You fail to understand that a body does not have to accept radiation impinging upon it. It accepts only radiation that meets specific criteria. In order to be absorbed, EM must have the energy equivalent to the difference in energy levels an electron must jump in order to raise it’s kinetic energy, hence it’s temperature.

In a warmer body, the receiving outer shell electrons are at too high an energy state to be affected by radiative energy from a cooler object, hence the 2nd law.

In bodies that are very close in temperature you may have regions that are below the average KE that determines the temperature. In that case, some IR from a cooler body may be absorbed. Since the bodies are nearly in equilibrium anyway, it won’t raise the temperature of the warmer body.

You are completely confused about radiation.
There is NO INFORMATION in any intercepted radiation about the temperature of its source. All you know is that there are a bunch of photons, with different frequencies. THAT IS ALL.
e.g. a photon at a specific frequency could have originated from
a block of ice
the moon
the sun
a distant star
the family dog
YOU CANNOT TELL. Therefore you cannot discriminate and decide not to absorb them.

Mike, you are not listening!
The Planck function and Wien’s Law only tell us something about the distribution of intensity of emitted radiation as a function of wavelength. Once the radiation has been emitted, the photons contain NO INFORMATION ABOUT the temperature of their source.
ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!
That means you cannot discriminate amongst them!
They all represent packets of energy that you cannot dodge!
That means you must absorb them – irrespective of their source !
Yes, that means you can absorb energy emitted by a block of ice !!

If the block of ice screens out a block of frozen nitrogen at -210 degreesC, then you will feel warmer.
If it screens out the sun, you will feel cooler.
The bottom line is that you can absorb energy from a cooler source.

BUT, and this is the big BUT, you also emit energy towards the same source. The DIFFERENCE is negative, meaning that in net terms , there is no transport of energy from the cooler to the warmer object, only from the warmer object (you) towards the block of ice.
The 2nd Law prevails!
Thank you.

SGW, I am not sure what your objection is. Where is energy confused/conflated with heat? Where is there an incorrect statement?

Adding context with an expanded quote:

The bottom line is that you can absorb energy from a cooler source.
BUT, and this is the big BUT, you also emit energy towards the same source. The DIFFERENCE is negative, meaning that in net terms , there is no transport of energy from the cooler to the warmer object, only from the warmer object (you) towards the block of ice.
The 2nd Law prevails!

* energy from any source, including a cooler source, will be absorbed. CHECK
* you (a warm object) emit energy in the form of thermal IR. CHECK
* The only net flow of thermal energy is from the warmer object to the cooler object. CHECK
* This net flow obeys the 2nd Law. CHECK.

You are relating the actual and correct textbook physics. Since neither Gordon Robertson nor Mike Flynn will ever open a textbook on the topic (I have linked both to actual online Heat Transfer Textbooks so they can read on the topic themselves) but they never do. The next few threads they make the same claims and never learn, never grow and never think it is even remotely possible that they are completely wrong and do not know what they are talking about.

They throw out a few words they read on blogs or some phony online physics paper that goes against all the textbooks and they are the Top experts in the field. You have the PHD David Appell who studied at higher levels or Tim Folkerts who is patient and thoughtful and they ridicule these two who actually bring real tested and verified physics to the table.

Good luck with them, no one has been able to teach them anything in several years. They know everything so what can you inform them about.

“In order to be absorbed, EM must have the energy equivalent to the difference in energy levels an electron must jump in order to raise its kinetic energy, hence its temperature. … In a warmer body, the receiving outer shell electrons are at too high an energy state to be affected by radiative energy from a cooler object”

You are missing several things here. Basically, you are thinking only about how individual atoms behave, but not how molecules, liquids, or solids behave. When atoms join together to form molecules, liquids and solids, there are many more way to absorb (and emit) EM energy that the ‘Bohr model’ paradigm you seem to have in mind.

Molecules can absorb energy by rotating or vibrating. And even molecules that are already rotating or vibrating and absorb photons, thereby simply rotating faster or vibrating with a larger amplitude.

Solids can also have vibrations of various amplitudes and absorb energy even when they are already vibrating. Furthermore, the electrons are in ‘bands’ — if one electron in the band is already in a higher energy level, then any of the other electrons could absorb the incoming EM energy instead.

” … hence the 2nd law”
No. The 2nd law is more subtle here than you are think. Just like the energy levels of solids & molecules are more subtle than you Bohr model thinking.

“The radiative forcings associated with ozone, greenhouse gases, aerosols etc. have all been measured and calculated for decades”

Unfortunately, “radiative forcing” is another sciency nonsense phrase used by climatological fake scientists. Just like “greenhouse gases” – meaningless garbage.

The GHE itself cannot be observed, reproduced, or even usefully described in scientific terms.

It doesn’t exist. CO2 does not make thermometers hotter, merely by its presence. Anybody who thinks otherwise is merely delusional. You could always try the usual foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse. Maybe if you think really, really, hard, you could stop the Earth’s four and a half billion years of cooling, and start it heating again. How hard could it be?

Let me make it simple for you (again)
Take a thermometer at the Earth’s surface and read the temperature.
Now, imagine you can immediately remove the entire atmosphere.
What would the temperature do?
Please answer the question.

dr no “Take a thermometer at the Earths surface and read the temperature.
Now, imagine you can immediately remove the entire atmosphere.
What would the temperature do?”

There are two answers here depending on whether the Sun is shining or not. If it was shining, the temperature would rise since it is convection due to the the atmosphere that cools the surface from the temperature it would be with direct solar radiation.

If the Sun was on the other side of the planet, the thermometer would drop due to the removal of the 99% of the atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen.

CO2 has nothing to do with it.

The moon varies from an average of 106 C during the day to an average of -183 C at night. It must retain some of its daytime heat because the temperature of space is around -273 C.

That’s comforting to know if you are ever stranded on the Moon at night. Be sure to take sun block and shades for the day time.

So, you are saying that the average temperature of the moon(without an atmosphere) is about (106-183)/2 = -38C or 234 K.
The average temperature of the Earth (with an atmosphere) is about 290 K
By your own figures, the presence of an atmosphere keeps us warmer, by about 56K, than would otherwise be the case.
Yes?

So, you are saying that the average temperature of the moon(without an atmosphere) is about (106-183)/2 = -38C or 234 K.–

That’s pretty close if measuring the temperature of lunar regolith at about 1 meter depth. Or rather than average, the the average near constant temperature of lunar surface just below the surface.
About 1 meter depth would make a good freezer [if you want to keep something cold and at constant temperature- but too cold for beer or even ice cream- though at or near the equator probably be able to get right temperature for ice cream].

I think the problem some are having is related to concept of a blackbody. A blackbody has no temperature and neither does a blackbody surface- and particularly true if an ideal blackbody [surface].
Or blackbody is the temperature which is the radiation which is directed at it- or same thing, the amount it radiates.
Or a blackbody has no heat and isn’t heated.
And according to thought experiment, whatever kinds watts of radiation it receives it would emit as blackbody of whatever total watts are received.
If you had it, it would work as invisibly cloak, though also with additional magically properties.

Wiki: “A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.”

An idealized man or women, also doesn’t exist. Though it’s quite possible that one thinks that a man or a women is perfect [or exactly what you happen to expect/hope them to be].
So nothing absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, but things of temperature will emit a spectrum of wavelength, which can be used to identify it’s temperature. So the sun loosely fits or as you say “pretty close to a black-body of 5778 K”. But a blackhole would closely resemble something that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence- or depending where you decide where the “surface” is, it might be perfect.
So with blackhole one has the question of is the information lost from this universe. The more stuff going into would make it bigger, so that not really lost- or one could say it’s absorbed and transformed into a larger gravity well. Or maybe blackbody emit something [of course a huge disk of matter surrounding a blackhole emits something, but mean from out of the event horizon.
So blackbody is supposed to absorb all radiation and emit as a blackbody curve of spectrum. The sun is powered from internal energy source, and does emit as blackbody would do at a given temperature. A blackbody would not have a internal source of heat, but as said it would have no heat or insignificant amount of heat, it does build up energy, it emits the energy which absorbed [or absorbed on a thin surface, rather having something massive it’s heating up]

Now you make a blackbody which measures the blackbody of the sun [at earth distance. A flat sheet of material which has great insulation behind it. So the sunlight hits say a 1 square meter surface and must lose energy by radiating from this one surface. And that surface temperature would be close to sum’s temperature [weaken by distance] at Earth’s distance.
This has not been done perfectly, but roughly it’s 120 C and radiates at blackbody temperature curve of 120 C.
So you made an object which won’t have a different angle of incident [flat] and you coated it with material that absorbs visible and near infrared light [which is most amount energy emitted by the sun- it could also be made to absorb the energy of the others, X-rays, UV and longer infrared light, and etc]

gbaikie, you have some interesting musings about black bodies, but also a few significant misunderstandings.

1) While it is true there are no truly blackbody surfaces, they are still a useful idealization — like frictionless surfaces. And like frictionless surfaces, there are some examples that are darn close to BB.

2) BBs can and do have temperature. They can also have internal energy sources. They can be low-mass or high-mass.

3) Blackholes have some similarities with BBs, but are quite different overall.

4) The *intensity* of sunlight decreases with distance but not the “temperature”. The photons still have the (approximate) spectrum of a 5770 K BB, so they still have a ‘temperature’ of 5700. This is an important distinction that some people overlook (and which leads them to incorrect conclusions).

David, I was specifically talking about the spectrum; about a collection of photons. I agree you can’t talk about the temperature of a single photon, just like you can’t talk about the temperature of a single atom. But you can talk about the temperature of a collection of atoms, just like you can talk about the temperature of a collection of photons.

gbaikie, you have some interesting musings about black bodies, but also a few significant misunderstandings.

1) While it is true there are no truly blackbody surfaces, they are still a useful idealization like frictionless surfaces. And like frictionless surfaces, there are some examples that are darn close to BB.

2) BBs can and do have temperature. They can also have internal energy sources. They can be low-mass or high-mass.

Actual things which act like BB have temperature, but ideal
blackbody wouldn’t or would be better if they didn’t have temperature- or it’s idea behind it being thin or very low mass.
Or:
“Kirchhoff in 1860 introduced the theoretical concept of a perfect black body with a completely absorbing surface layer of infinitely small thickness, but Planck noted some severe restrictions upon this idea.”
[Yes, there are problems: “Penetration depth is a measure of how deep light or any electromagnetic radiation can penetrate into a material. It is defined as the depth at which the intensity of the radiation inside the material falls to 1/e (about 37%) of its original value at (or more properly, just beneath) the surface.”- wiki ]

But there was a purpose to this Kirchhoff’s madness but it’s physically impractical.
Now, if we only had some neutrium, maybe.
But continuing the quote:

“Planck noted three requirements upon a black body: the body must (i) allow radiation to enter but not reflect; (ii) possess a minimum thickness adequate to absorb the incident radiation and prevent its re-emission; (iii) satisfy severe limitations upon scattering to prevent radiation from entering and bouncing back out.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Some of that can [sort of] be done using carbon nano-tubes.
“Among all known materials, we found that a forest of vertically aligned single-walled carbon nanotubes behaves most similarly to a black body,”

“4) The *intensity* of sunlight decreases with distance but not the temperature. The photons still have the (approximate) spectrum of a 5770 K BB, so they still have a temperature of 5700. This is an important distinction that some people overlook (and which leads them to incorrect conclusions).”

I will continue use word, temperature, the sunlight at earth distance hasn’t lost temperature, but it’s been spread out so loses it’s “temperature” per square meter. Or the sunlight can be focused and regain it’s temperature per square meter [but not increase it above the sun’s surface temperature.

Or the direct light from the sun, is pretty “straight”. Or I think it’s straighter then any laser light would be [not sure about that- but all laser light diverges/weakens over enough distance].

The term “blackbody” is a bit of a misnomer. The ‘black’ part describes the surface, not the bulk ‘body’. But it is what we have. A ‘blackbody’ is a body with a perfectly absorbing (and emitting) surface.

Actual things which act like BB have temperature, but ideal
blackbody wouldnt …
An ideal blackbody has mass and hence temperature. It emits a spectrum determined by that temperature. If there was no temperature, you could not predict the spectrum it would produce.

Or the sunlight can be focused and regain its temperature per square meter [but not increase it above the suns surface temperature].”

YES! That is the critical feature of ‘spread out but hot’ sunlight. No matter how much sunlight has been attenuated by distance, it can still in principle be refocus/intensified to warm something approaching the temperature of the sun.

But the 400 W/m^2 from the warm surface of the earth cannot be focused to warm anything past the ~ 290K surface temperature.

Lots of people get this wrong. They wonder why you can’t focus all that downward IR from the sky to cook something.

Day or night? What latitude? What altitude? What time of day? What date? What are the physical characteristics of the atmosphere? Stupid foolish Warmist “gotcha”!

Do you think you could ask a more ill-defined “gotcha” if you put just a wee bit more effort into it?

Foolish Warmist. The Moon has far greater extremes of temperature – hotter and colder. It has no effective atmosphere, and its greater surface to volume ratio means that its crust is far thicker than the Earth’s, both in absolute and relative terms. That should give you a starting point.

If you tell me what efforts you have made to answer your question, and why you were not satisfied with what you learned, I’ll consider complying with your request. I’ll probably say no, because you’re acting like a foolish Warmist.

It wouldn’t actually “do” anything, would it? Maybe if you could learn how to pose a useful question, you mightn’t give the appearance of the bumbling, fumbling, foolish Warmist that you seem to be trying so hard to aspire to.

There is no GHE. You can’t even usefully describe it, can you? Certainly nothing to do with greenhouses, and the supposed effect cannot be observed or reproduced! I suppose this makes it perfect as an item of unquestioning faith for those of small brain, extreme gullibility, or sufferers from delusional psychosis.

Do you fall into one of those categories, or do you suffer from some other form of mental defect?

It comes from differential equation theory. A forcing function is a mathematical function like a unit impulse function applied to a differential equation to test its output. I remember doing those math problems in engineering along with other painful exercises like working through the solutions of a Bessel function, which could take pages of computation.

Modelers are so into their virtual mental spaces they have tried to apply differential equation theory to the atmosphere, mainly because, to them, that’s all it is.

Maybe you should exhort Gavin Schmidt, undistinguished mathematician, to stick to mathematics. He doesn’t seem to understand physics, statistics, probabilities, or computer programming. He seems to think he’s a “climate scientist”.

Maybe his talents extend to counting the paper clips accurately at GISS. Have you asked him?

Perhaps it is time to listen to an engineer. Average global temperature prediction of a group of Climate Scientists, scientists, mathematicians and physicists is about double what has actually been measured.

“The wintry weather will first hit the Cascades late this week and the northern Sierra Nevada with lowering snow levels this weekend,” Margusity said.
Snow levels may dip below 5,000 feet in the Cascades and to near 6,500 feet in the northern Sierra Nevada this weekend.
The snowiest spots of the high country may receive several inches of snow. The combination of gusty winds and heavy, wet snow may cause tree limbs to break, which may not only be a hazard for campers and hikers, but could block some back mountain roads.”

“Mike, you are not listening!
The Planck function and Wiens Law only tell us something about the distribution of intensity of emitted radiation as a function of wavelength. Once the radiation has been emitted, the photons contain NO INFORMATION ABOUT the temperature of their source.
ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!
That means you cannot discriminate amongst them!
They all represent packets of energy that you cannot dodge!
That means you must absorb them irrespective of their source !
Yes, that means you can absorb energy emitted by a block of ice !!”

He may not comprehend that –

“A photon is characterized by either a wavelength, denoted by λ or equivalently an energy, denoted by E. There is an inverse relationship between the energy of a photon (E) and the wavelength of the light.”

According to NASA –

“The temperature of a body can be determined by the wavelength at which the maximum brightness occurs according to the formula T = 2897/L where L is the wavelength in microns, and T is the temperature in Kelvin degrees. For example, a human with a temperature of 98 F (309 K) will have a ‘black body’ curve that peaks at a wavelength of 9.4 microns.”

This is about 0.13 eV, if my arithmetic is correct

If you measure the wavelength, or the energy, of the photon in question, you can easily calculate the blacbody temperature of the body which emitted that photon.

Believe as you wish. You may believe you can increase the temperature of your warm beverage by surrounding it with ice. You may believe that you can increase the temperature of a thermometer by surrounding it with CO2. If you are particularly gullible, you may even believe you can raise the temperature of the ground by exposing it to a colder atmosphere.

Belief will not make fantasy become fact. Still no GHE. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface will not make the thermometer hotter.

“If you measure the wavelength, or the energy, of the photon in question, you can easily calculate the blacbody temperature of the body which emitted that photon.”

Mike , Mike , Mike-
You are seriously embarrassing yourself now.
Consider this – you have just intercepted a photon with a wavelength of 1 micron. What is the temperature of the body that emitted it?
YOU CANNOT TELL

If you measure the intensity of the radiation ACROSS ALL WAVELENGTHS (i.e. the SPECTRUM) then you CAN estimate the temperature.
BUT you cannot infer the temperature by measuring the intensity at just one wavelength. Herein lies your confusion. Photons on their own convey no information about temperature.
Now, that I have simplified things, please don’t ask me to explain it again.

YOU: “Believe as you wish. You may believe you can increase the temperature of your warm beverage by surrounding it with ice”

You do not provide much information and it would not be a belief but something you can measure with a thermometer.

If you warm beverage has a constant input of energy to keep it at a certain temperature then the question depends upon your surroundings. If you and beverage (with its little heat source) are in a room surrounded by walls with liquid helium keeping them at a very cold 3K then the your beverage will warm to a much higher temperature if you were surrounded by 273K ice walls. It will warm to even higher temperature (your heated beverage) if you surround yourself and beverage with room temperature walls.

I know you can’t grasp this or understand it. I just always hope some day the light bulb may turn on in that vast emptiness you call a mind and illuminate the errors in your thought process. Little hope for that though. You are too completely brainwashed to learn anything.

Flat-Earth man, no matter what arguments or reason presented to you that the Earth is spheroid you will still believe it is a vast flat circle. I think you might actually believe this since you can’t comprehend how the scientists get a 340 W/m^2 flux for the entire surface of the Earth from the energy hitting a flat disk of 1360 W/m^2. Yes I think you are a true believing Flat-Earth member and nothing in this world will ever change your mind.

Mike Flynn says:
“If you measure the wavelength, or the energy, of the photon in question, you can easily calculate the blacbody temperature of the body which emitted that photon.”

Wrong.

You have to measure the full spectrum to determine the temperature of a blackbody. Or, at least, enough of the spectrum to determine the wavelength of maximum intensity so you can apply Wien’s displacement law.

“The temperature of a body can be determined by the wavelength at which the maximum brightness occurs according to the formula T = 2897/L where L is the wavelength in microns, and T is the temperature in Kelvin degrees. For example, a human with a temperature of 98 F (309 K) will have a black body curve that peaks at a wavelength of 9.4 microns.”

However, here’s a simple example of photons “retaining” information, after emission.

Look around you. You perceive colours. The photon received by your eye in daylight has come all the way from the sun, retaining its information. Using a prism, you can split the sunlight into its component frequencies, to any desired level of precision. A photon perceived as green by your visual receptors may have been emitted by the Sun, travelled through the atmosphere, been refracted through a lens and a prism, and reflected off a diffuse surface and a mirror. Its energy level has not changed. Still green. Colour temperature can be accurately calculated from its wavelength.

A photon has a specific wavelength and energy level. Take the output from a laser. The photons are collimated to a high degree. The photons have very very similar energy levels – wavelengths. Bounce the beam off a hundred mirrors. A miracle occurs, literally. The photon you detect has precisely the same energy content as the original.

If you use a thermal imaging device, it may be calibrated in degrees. In other words, photons emitted by bodies retain energy levels which can be converted to the temperatures of the bodies from whence they came.

I understand your reluctance to address what I wrote, rather than what I didn’t. I believe that your tactic of studiously avoiding quoting what I actually wrote, and instead, flying off at a tangent, might be seen as trying to demolish a straw man, erected by yourself.

Maybe you actually quote something I said, and complain about it. What do you think?

Question: YOU STATE this correct statement: “You still cannot heat a hotter body with a colder one.”

You make this statement as if it is something new or original. Which of the warmists you know have stated anything different?

Also your ability to comprehend what you read is very low. Maybe you could work on that by ending the cycle of repetition and actually thinking about what you post.

Here: The temperature of a body can be determined by the wavelength at which the maximum brightness occurs according to the formula T = 2897/L where L is the wavelength in microns, and T is the temperature in Kelvin degrees. For example, a human with a temperature of 98 F (309 K) will have a black body curve that peaks at a wavelength of 9.4 microns.

You need the whole black body curve to determine where the peak of the curve lies.

Also your photon retains information. You really do not comprehend concepts at all do you. The green energy photon has the same energy despite its travels, but the green energy photon cannot tell you anything about the object that emitted it. You can have identical green photons coming from many different sources and not one of them could tell you about how hot the object was they came from.

You really should (this is not a demand or order, just a kindly suggestion) open a textbook on physics and spend some time reading it. Then you will see the many errors in your thought process you really have and it will remove the blinders you have that prevent you from seeing the many errors you post on a near continuous basis.

The quote to which you object came from NASA. If you do not believe the NASA physicists, maybe you could write to NASA, and set them straight. They may well pay you the same regard as I.

As to photons, you can establish what energy they contain.

As I mentioned, infrared thermal imaging devices can be calibrated to read temperatures by assessing the energy levels of emitted photons. Even when focussed through lenses, bounced off mirrors, or transmitted through diffusing media such as fog or smoke, the photon still can be used to tell you the “temperature” of the emitting matter.

As to colour and temperature, particular shade of green may result from a black body at 5175 K. So you can say without fear that a black body would have to be raised to a specific temperature to emit a photon of a certain energy.

You are correct if you think that “climate scientists” do not understand these sorts of things. That is why they confuse Watts with Kelvins, and temperature with energy content, and so on. This is why they have to create sciency sounding words unknown and unused by real scientists.

Maybe you could actually quote something I wrote with which you disagree. Provide facts to buttress your disagreement, and if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it, and change my opinions. So far, you’ve taken exception to something said by NASA, and agreed with something I wrote.

Still no GHE. You still can’t even provide a useful description of the non-existent effect, can you?

Foolish Warmist – no facts, just more deny, divert, and confuse tactics. Maybe if you try harder, you can create the GHE with the powers of your mind. What do you think?

Talk about doubling down!
Its like talking to a brick wall !
For the last time, thermal imaging devices measure the SPECTRUM in order to estimate temperature BECAUSE an emitting object emits photons OVER A RANGE OF WAVELENGTHS (according to the Planck function).
Do you get it now??
You cannot determine temperature from a single photon.
Admit it, your entire argument fails.
The GHE does exist!

I assume you’re complaining about NASA, but it’s difficult to establish what you are whining about, if you refuse to quote it!

Maybe you are interpreting concepts differently to myself, but even that is hard to establish if you refuse to actually quote what I said. Press on. Keep believing in the non-existent GHE. Maybe you can covnert fantasy to fact using the power of positive thinking!

In the meantime, nobody has ever managed to cause a thermometer on the surface to become hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and the Sun.

In other words, no GHE, It would seem – to anyone except a foolish Warmist, of course!

I detect that your efforts at distraction mean that you may be seeing the light!
And, by that, I am not referring to your optic nerve receiving photons with a range of wavelengths !
The penny must surely be dropping by now!

I don’t expect you to admit you are wrong, but it is obvious to all and sundry who have been following these comments.

The Flat-Earth Society is on the phone, they want you to join up as soon as possible.

I don’t have a problem with the NASA scientists or their quote you posted. The problem is you can’t comprehend what you read. Read it again and you will see what you missed. They are not talking about individual photons in the quote. They are talking about peak numbers of photons at a certain wavelength that you can determine if you have a black body curve. You cannot get a peak of a curve from one or even a few photons.

Here is a link that shows a Plank Curve with different temperatures. I am sure you can’t comprehend what you are seeing so the graph will be of no help.

If you look at the Plank Spectrum for different temperatures you can see a wide variety of temperatures will produce green photons. So if you detect a single green photon what is the temperature of the object that produced it? You can’t tell from a single photon.

MF says: “So you can say without fear that a black body would have to be raised to a specific temperature to emit a photon of a certain energy.”
And what temperature would a blackbody have to be raised to emit a photon with an energy of, say, 1 eV = 1.6e-19 J? I am awaiting your fearless answer.

You are the one making the claim. It is up to you to ‘put up or shut up’ as they say. What is it that you are finding so difficult about claim you could say without fear what the temperature was. Yet when ask to follow up on your own claim, you try to slither away.

I apologise. I assumed you took into account the context of the NASA quote. I obviously overestimated your ability to understand the concept of “maximum”.

I should have realised that a person who refused to accept the usage of adiabatic “heating” might also have their own preferred definitions in other areas.

Maybe you could just ask for clarification, if you have doubts about my clarity of expression.

You’ve asked me to provide pointless information, in a foolish Warmist attempt at a “gotcha”. You claim to be awaiting an answer, but I am suspicious of your motives. I have difficulty accepting that you cannot answer your own question.

I don’t dance to the Witless Warmist tune without good reason. You are not a good reason, as far as I can see.

Over and Over you ask the same question that has been answered hundreds of times by many different posters, yet you ignore what they say and go on with your endless cycle of delusional statements.

HERE YOU STATE: “Still no GHE. You still cant even provide a useful description of the non-existent effect, can you?”

Useful description. CO2 is transparent to nearly all solar radiant energy. The thermometer on the surface will not cool from Carbon Dioxide as nearly all the incoming solar energy will reach the surface. CO2 is opaque to a few wavelengths in the IR band and this energy emitted by the Earth’s surface will be absorbed by the CO2 and thermalized. The warmed CO2 will start emitting in all directions sending photons back to the surface where they are absorbed thermalized and become part of the energy budget of the surface.

Observable facts. The Earth’s average globally emits around 398 W/m^2 but at the TOA only 240 are emitted to space. What more do you need?

Your supposed description is the usual collection of foolish Warmist nonsense. It sounds sciency, but imparts no useful information.

You start off saying –

“CO2 is transparent to nearly all solar radiant energy. The thermometer on the surface will not cool from Carbon Dioxide as nearly all the incoming solar energy will reach the surface.”

What is this statement supposed to mean?

Nitrogen and oxygen also share the property you have ascribed to CO2, I believe. What does the statement have to do with the supposed GHE? What happened to H2O, CH4, and all the other supposed GHGs? Or are they not part of the GHE? What natural phenomenon does the GHE supposedly describe?

Moving along, your second sentence is even more incoherent than the usual foolish Warmist claptrap! Would you consider writing what you really mean, or are you actually suffering from a mental defect which affects your ability to express your thoughts?

Not so good, Norman, not so good. You might be able to pick up a few pointers by looking at real scientific effects. The Seebeck effect is a possible contender for examination. At least it’s short.

Still no GHE. As David Appell said, it is a metaphor for something completely unknown. A banana, perhaps? Probably not, as bananas are useful.

–Observable facts. The Earths average globally emits around 398 W/m^2 but at the TOA only 240 are emitted to space. What more do you need?–
I think you meant Earths average global temperature is about 15 C and you think Earth if it did not have greenhouse gases [which include effects of clouds] would not have average temperature 15 C , and think with greenhouses gases [and effects of clouds] cause the surface to emits around 398 W/m^2 and only 240 watts getting thru the atmosphere to space.
And blackbody in vacuum of space which radiate 398 W/m2 has a blackbody temperature of around 15 C.

This ignore the obvious fact that on earth things kept at temperatures due to convection [air temperature/room temperature]. And that a surface radiating 398 watts [or 600 watts or whatever] doesn’t warm the air, but rather a heated surface heats the air via convectional process.
One climbs a tall mountain, and it’s colder up there, it’s colder because the air temperature is colder and little to nothing to do with you radiating more heat into space [because there less atmosphere and less greenhouse gas between you and great void].

And the clothes you wear have little to do with preventing radiant losses, rather they work because they inhibit convectional losses. And if too hot, one will cools by evaporation heat loss.

Anyhow, other believer of the greenhouse effect, consider that GHE works by reducing the amount of cooling which otherwise would occur without greenhouse gases. They sometimes think this works better outside the tropic- the temperate and arctic regions. Or they tend to think manmade greenhouse gases are warming the polar regions too much [sometime they visit the arctic [not in the summer] and get surprisingly cold.

Anyways, I think it’s mostly about the ocean.
Or the Ocean has average surface of 17 C.
And average land temperature is much colder than 15 C.

We have a lot tropical animals called human not living in the tropics [which does have average temperature warm enough for the human animal] who live in heated homes and wear coats, shoes, etc. And they can’t run out in wildness without clothes [and/or sleeping bag and tent] or they die from the cold.
And these clueless idiots imagine they going die from their environment getting too warm- or they worry about the polar bears [which would like to eat them- especially the fatter ones].

Observable facts. The Earths average globally emits around 398 W/m^2 but at the TOA only 240 are emitted to space. What more do you need?
I think you meant Earths average global temperature is about 15 C and you think Earth if it did not have greenhouse gases [which include effects of clouds] would not have average temperature 15 C , and think with greenhouses gases [and effects of clouds] cause the surface to emits around 398 W/m^2 and only 240 watts getting thru the atmosphere to space.
And blackbody in vacuum of space which radiate 398 W/m2 has a blackbody temperature of around 15 C.

Exactly! I’m so tired of this stupid warmist argument. The claimed 398 W/m^2 “flux” IS NOT MEASURED! The surface TEMPERATURE is what is measured. And from all the temperature measurements around the world one estimates an AVERAGE global T_sfc. This is about 16C (289K). And only FROM this, using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, the 398 W/m^2 “flux” is simply … CALCULATED!

The only way such a conceptual “flux” can be measured (as in ‘physically detected’) is if it becomes an ACTUAL RADIATIVE FLUX, moving from the emitting surface to a region at absolute zero, or at least to a detector that is much, much colder than the surface:

A pyrgeometer, the instrument that is claimed to “measure” this 398 W/m^2 surface “flux”, would in fact be utterly incapable of producing any kind of DW or UW value if it didn’t specifically have 1) the net exchange at the sensor, and 2) the sensor temperature, as actual physical inputs. The 398 W/m^2 is a COMPUTED value. And so is the 345 W/m^2 DW “flux”.

What makes the ‘398 vs. 240’ argument even more silly is the fact that this is an apples and oranges kind of comparison. They are NOT equivalents! The 240 W/m^2 at the ToA (the OLR) is an ACTUAL HEAT FLUX – the net LW from the Earth to space. The 398 W/m^2 at the surface, however, is NOT a heat flux at all, NOT the net LW from the surface to the atmosphere/space. If you were to compare anything at all, it should be the net LW from the surface (53 W/m^2) with the net LW at the ToA (240 W/m^2), or the total surface heat loss (Q_rad(LW)+Q_cond+Q_evap) (165 W/m^2) with the total heat loss at the ToA (the OLR) (240 W/m^2).

IOW, nothing is “trapped” on the way from the surface to the ToA. Quite the contrary!

Kristian still offers his opinion with no linking evidence to support his conclusions, no experimental evidence, and very illogical thought process.

The surface would be emitting a “heat flux” if no atmosphere were present of 398 W/m^2 (until it cooled) but once you add an an atmosphere the 398 W/m^2 suddenly drops to 53 W/m^2 (which Kristian provides zero supporting evidence to support, I have asked him already and he ignores the request).

gbaikie if you want good science and supporting evidence Kristian is not your source. He is interested in peddling his own theory and ignores the large amount of textbook information that completely contradicts his opinions.

He is wrong about how they get the surface flux. They do not measure the temperature then calculate the expected flux. They have sensors scattered about that are pointed toward the Earth’s surface that detect changes in the internal material of the array and create a voltage that gives a calibrated energy flux coming up from the surface. The NET between instrument temperature and upwelling IR has nothing to do with the downwelling flux at all.

If you go the ESRL page you can see Kristian is wrong and promoting that which is not supported by evidence.

gbaikie says:
We have a lot tropical animals called human not living in the tropics.

We have 3 billion people (and a great many species) that live in the tropics.

What happens to them in a warming climate?–

I assume nothing changes, or hasn’t changed in other warmer periods.
But enough my thoughts on the matter, I don’t think anyone anywhere would or could really notice a 2 C rise in global temperature and I think 5 C increase would be helpful [though it’s not going to happen in thousand years]. The question what do you believe happens in the tropics. What particular place do you imagine it to get “hottest”, tropical island paradises?
Are people going to decide not to go Tahiti because weather is too hot. So “The annual average temperature in Tahiti is 80 degrees Fahrenheit, or 27 degrees Celsius.”

So take the crazy number of adding 5 C to global temperature- so have global average temperature of about 20 C.
Does Tahiti average temperature rise by 5 C [or do you imagine even warmer?
Is it deserts tropics, and is desert sand hotter than say 70 C [or higher than it currently becomes- if so how much more?] And sand doesn’t get hotter, how does air get hotter?
Does seem hotter because it’s more humid.
The hottest air temperature ever recorded in world was almost 100 year- and the average temperature has increased in the time by .5 C [or more],
Getting back to Tahiti, I doubt you are living someplace with such a high average yearly temperature.

Another way to look at it, the average global ocean surface temperature is 17 C.
If global average temperature were 20 C, what would the average global ocean temperature be.
Could increase to 25 C or do you think the surface temperature will not rise by much?

Now, the reason the average surface temperature of the ocean is 17, is because the tropical ocean [like the ones around Tahiti] are warm. How warm is waters off Tahiti? It looks dip down to 82.8 in August:http://w-weather.com/French_Polynesia/Tahiti/sea_temperature/
So land is cooler than ocean [which is normal] and ocean is about 83 F [28 C] or warmer. Oceans are 17 C because entire tropical ocean is +26 C.
So if you selected the idea the average ocean would increase
from 17 to somewhere around 25 C, then you correct, because you can only have global temperature of 20 C with the ocean becoming much warmer.
Next, if ocean warm from 17 to about 25 C, where in the ocean is having the most increase in temperature?
If pick the tropics- you are completely wrong. Try again.

So it has to be outside the tropics where the ocean become warmer. Do live anywhere near a ocean? would be bad if the ocean got 10 degrees or more warmer. Maybe you won’t need a wetsuit to swim in the winter. Is going to cause temperature near beach to get too warm- is too warm in Tahiti?
So water which below say 20 warmer and make water 15, even more warmer, and so on. Instead having all the cooler ocean water subtracting from 40% of the planets tropical ocean of +26 C, most ocean is close to tropical oceans temperature. Of course wipes out all polar sea ice- and it doesn’t even refreeze much during the 6 months of darkness of winter.

Of course this would also increase land air temperatures- and basically cause warmer winters.

So simply because ocean area is 70% of total surface area of Earth, it’s temperature must be increased, and a lot warming increased a lot

Mike Flynn says:
Norman,
“You start off saying
CO2 is transparent to nearly all solar radiant energy. The thermometer on the surface will not cool from Carbon Dioxide as nearly all the incoming solar energy will reach the surface.

Mike you are starting to get them rattled again, they put up very fine arguments (according to them)on things you actually didn’t say I love their PHD response, yes you did, yes you did,go on say it yes you did
HC

“Even when focussed through lenses, bounced off mirrors, or transmitted through diffusing media such as fog or smoke, the photon still can be used to tell you the temperature of the emitting matter.”

“A photon perceived as green by your visual receptors may have been emitted by the Sun, travelled through the atmosphere, been refracted through a lens and a prism, and reflected off a diffuse surface and a mirror. Its energy level has not changed. Still green. Colour temperature can be accurately calculated from its wavelength.”

Both of these talk about single photons or a specific wavelength/energy/color, not a spectrum. Both claim that the temperature of the emitting object can be determined from the energy.

Do you stand by this claim? Can a (singular) photon still be used to tell you the temperature of the emitting matter? Can the wavelength of a (singular) photon be used to calculate the temperature of the emitting object? Perhaps you want to modify your statements?

I wrote what I wrote, and at least you were kind enough to quote me exactly.

What is it that you disagree with, and why? If you can provide facts to support your point of view, I may well change my point of view – as would any rational person.

I assume you have no facts, so you are resorting to the foolish Warmist practice of interminable and poorly composed “gotchas”. If you choose, present some facts to support your specific disagreements.

Until you give me sufficient cause, I see no reason to modify anything. Why should I? Unless and until you can provide facts to show that I am specifically wrong, I can only assume you are presenting an unsubstantiated speculation.

I meant what I said. At some point you have to say exactly what you mean. Show us you are not “all hat and no cattle”. Show is you have facts to back up your claims, rather than endlessly evading any and all direct questions.

Let me quote a little more along the same line of thinking:

“Thermal imaging devices measure temperatures using the wavelengths of photons emitted by objects of interest. ”

“So you can say without fear that a black body would have to be raised to a specific temperature to emit a photon of a certain energy.

These are either wrong or poorly worded. I disagree with these two sentences. I think you need to explain what you mean.

If my thermal imaging device detects photons of wavelength 2.0 um, what is the temperature of the emitting object? (Or at least, what specific equation(s) do you propose using for such a calculation.) Show us your fearlessness!

If a photons has an energy of 0.5 eV, to what specific temperature would an object have to be raised to emit such a photon? (Or at least, what specific equation(s) do you propose using for such a calculation.) Show us your deep knowledge of the topic!

I, and many others here, say that intensities over a range of wavelengths (a spectrum) is needed for any such calculations. Do you agree, or do you think that photons of a single wavelength can be used for the tasks that you clearly implied in your statements?

You’re seemingly obsessed with trying to assert a photon does not carry the information of its emission. You might want to check photon emission equations. Notice the “T” in the equations. Do you think “T” stands for “tacos”?

Why Filbert, is your spin machine broken? Now you have to avoid the calculation?

But, just above, you wanted to show your calculations. You were all about “calculating”! You were wildly using Wein’s equation, like there was no tomorrow!

Now, your calculator is broken?

The point is, Filbert, a photon’s emission IS related to temperature (not tacos). And, that photon’s energy is FIXED by the emission temperature (not tacos). And, THAT is the point you are trying to evade, not me.

“a photons emission IS related to temperature (not tacos). And, that photons energy is FIXED by the emission temperature (not tacos). And, THAT is the point you are trying to evade, not me.”

No, wrong. The *blackbody spectrum* is fixed by the temperature. Planck gives intensities across the whole spectrum of energies. Wein gives the location of the most intense wavelength of that spectrum. A whole range of energies are emitted. Not a single fixed energy at a fixed temperature.

That is the point you fail to grasp.

(To give a few more details yet, for non-black-bodies Planck’s Law gives the *maximum* possible intensity at each energy. For non, blackbody materials (eg CO2), the intensity is everywhere less than or equal to the BB intensity.)

Are you perchance referring to Weins law? The one that says
lambda_max = 2900 μmK/T. That one that say the maximum intensity OF A SPECTRUM falls at 2900 μmK/T?

So for example, BB @ 290K has a lambda_max of 10 μm, but it also emits a whole range of other wavelengths. And a BB @ 2900 K has lambda_max = 1 μm, but also emits other photons over a broad range. .

But here is a fun fact: 1 m^2 @ 2900 K emits more 10 μm photons than 1 m^2 @290 K. Yep even thought a 290 K surface emits best @ 10 um, a 2900 K surface emits even better!–
I don’t have problem with above, but I will discuss the last bit of “emits even better!”
So Sun emits a lot of 10 μm photons, and certainly more than Earth [sun’s bigger and hotter]. But without any look at the math, the amount of sun’s 10 μm reaching Earth is not so overwhelmingly high compared to Earth’s total “production” of 10 μm photons [or even with a comparison in terms of square meters]. Or the 10 μm photon of sun are not doing much warming [perhaps] as the 10 μm photons from Earth.

But getting to the “emits even better” bit, the sun’s 10 μm photons will be directed sunlight. So all of the sun’s 10 μm photons will be directed light [just like all the other wavelengths from the sun reaching Earth distance].
And say if say, 1 million km from Earth [or say Sun/Earth L-1] all earth’s 10 μm will also be direct light [but not as directed as Sun’s 10 μm photons. But if went closer to Earth, say 10,000 km, one gets more directed light and you also get [more] indirect light.
And in term of trivia type thing, one could probably find a point [somewhere] where the direct light of Sun’s 10 μm matched the Earth’s 10um of directed light [though one has detail of sunlight being better in terms of being a more direct light].
So find it, one would need to do the math [if you like doing math]to find such a point.

“Observing a 10 um photon does NOT tell you it probably was emitted by a 290 K surface. Observing a 290 K surface does not tell you to expect a 10 um photon.”

Yes, but the 10 um photon should have more photons and watts of these 10 um photons as compared in other wavelength of protons one could detect. [Assuming you have measured, graphed, and/or displayed the results correctly. And the not actual blackbody acts roughly like the model of a blackbody.]
[[Oh,Btw, after all above, I assume there is actually a photon which is pretty close to the number/measure of 10 um]]

I wrote what I wrote, and at least you were kind enough to quote me exactly.

What is it that you disagree with, and why? If you can provide facts to support your point of view, I may well change my point of view as would any rational person.–

I guessing, Tim thinks, you think that a single photon gives enough information so you know it’s temperature [or calculate it’s temperature] rather than a general idea regarding temperature such as that X-rays would not coming from molten steel, because it’s too cold, or that since the sun emits x-rays it needs to be higher than some threshold temperature. And other than certain energetic explosive events, gamma rays don’t emit from the Sun.

However, I prefer not to have to guess what Tim thinks I think. Maybe he could just read what I wrote, and produce facts to support his view, if he thinks I am in error.

Science should be about facts – at least in my opinion. Foolish Warmists may differ.

Climatology is an example of Cargo Cult Scientism, as far as I can see. Strident assertions, appeals to consensus and authority, false claims of Nobel Prizes, but little in the way of disprovable hypotheses, or reproducible experiments.

Claims of CO2 making thermometers hotter seem bizarre. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, as far as I understand, and CO2 levels be damned!

YOU WANT AN EXPLANATION: “CO2 is transparent to nearly all solar radiant energy. The thermometer on the surface will not cool from Carbon Dioxide as nearly all the incoming solar energy will reach the surface.

What is this statement supposed to mean?”

It means that the thermometer will not be cooler because of Carbon Dioxide than if there was none (like Moon’s surface). The Carbon Dioxide does not absorb significant amounts of Solar energy.

Norm has a serious problem with written communication. He starts pounding on his keyboard (rambling), and doesn’t know when to stop. He believes the more he pounds, the more he can convince folks that he knows something. It hasn’t been working too well for him.

Once, trying to describe Earth’s energy balance, he wrote: “The energy does NOT leave the system”. In the very same comment, he rambled on “The energy leaves the system”!

He goes by “Logical Thinker” and “David Clark” on the Oregonian’s comment forums. He’s afraid to comment under his real name.

He’s noticeably stopped attacking me since I pointed out his real name here about a week ago. Before that, he was using the exact same comment format in both places, which usually included him quoting himself in comments by “ME – …”, and he called me “Davie” in both places.

He’s a long-time gadfly who doesn’t understand even the basics of the science, but can only repeat the same ill-informed questions for years.

Davie, why in the world would anyone attack you, Pizza Boy? Surely everyone knows that you are only trying to “save the planet”. You forsake a possible minimum-wage salary to spend your time trolling. What a sacrifice!

it puzzles me how some climate scientists can say that climate science should be left to them, and geologists, astronomers,mathematicians, etc, etc,have nothing useful to add to the subject, how can they say that when all science,is numbers,from atomic particles,to mountains,hot to cold,gasses or solids,its all numbers.maybe we need more collective input, and less segregation, many hands make light work.

Say a neurosurgeon tells you that you need surgery for a brain tumor. Would you seek a second opinion from a gynecologist?

Sure, anyone can offer an opinion, even try to inform themselves before doing so. But until they get some traction with published papers on the topic, had their ideas examined by experts in that particular field, their opinion should be given the appropriate weight.

It might be more to the point if you asked if you would believe an undistinguished mathematician, with proven deficiencies in statistics, physics, and computer programming, who claims to be a “scientist”? Or a scientist who was apparently so dim, that he was unable to understand he didn’t actually win a Nobel Prize for anything at all, let alone physics?

Do you really think the endless reexamination of numerical weather observations is science? Silly question, I know – of course you do! 100% of foolish Warmists probably agree with each other. All delusional, unfortunately.

I would think Climatologist would be closer to general practitioners in your analogy. With mathematicians, physicist, chemists, earth scientist, others as the specialists. The Climatologist would/should be able to see the big picture, and some may also originate as specialist in some areas. But I would not readily dismiss the opinion of a specialist just because they do not understand the big picture. If a gynecologist noticed I had a peculiar twitch and suggested I see a neurologist, I would not dismiss their opinion.

Gavin Schmidt seems to be an undistinguished mathematician who claims to be a scientist, as far as I can see. Your comment about becoming Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies is peculiar. There doesn’t seem to be any mention of “climate science” being a requirement for the position.

If Gavin Schmidt claims to be a climate scientist, it would seem to be on the basis that he can average a series of numbers. He doesn’t seem to have even completed a post grad meteorological course, so would not be presumed to have any formal expertise in weather.

Slightly odd, for someone who claims to be a “climate scientist”.

I’m not attacking a scientist at all, as far as I can see. Here’s the Oxford dictionary definition –

“A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”

I can’t see where expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences is involved. Gavin Schmidt may have experience or qualifications of which I am unaware, of course. Feel free to point them out, if you wish.

uk ian brown says:
“it puzzles me how some climate scientists can say that climate science should be left to them, and geologists, astronomers,mathematicians, etc, etc,have nothing useful to add to the subject”

He thinks the CO2 in a room ‘shields’ the thermometer by absorbing some of the energy from the energy source.

He seems to think that the ball of gas won’t transfer the absorbed heat anywhere, that it will somehow magically remain contained within the ball of gas.

That breaks the laws of physics.

The room in his thought experiment is receiving energy/heat from the heat source, and losing heat to the outside at the same time. If all else remains the same the thermometer temperature will rise a bit when the heat source is switched on, and eventually level out when heat loss of the room matches the energy input.

Stick a bunch of CO2 in the room and now there are more molecules absorbing the energy, the air warms up, and the temperature of the room rises until energy outflow compensates.

Somehow Mike thinks only the CO2 will warm up, and that this heat will be magically contained from the rest of the air, the room and the thermometer.

If you are not a foolish Warmist, you’re certainly doing your best to emulate one.

You can’t actually quote anything I wrote, so you just fabricate stuff. You seem to be in the grip of some deep-seated delusional psychosis, which leads you to believe you can read minds. Some might classify you as barking mad, but I would not do such a thing without evidence.

Can you produce any evidence that you are not, indeed, barking mad, and arguing with yourself by creating silly “thought experiments”?

I sympathise with your inability to actually quote anything I said. Unfortunately, your fantasy appears to be overtaking your grip on reality. I wish you well. Continue to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer on the surface and the Sun, will make the thermometer hotter, if it gives you solace.

Maybe you could quote what I wrote, and why you disagree. Your opinion is worth nothing, without supporting facts. Computer simulations are not facts. Appeals to authority are not facts.

How hard can it be?

As to your question, it’s probably the most inane and pointless attempt at a “gotcha” yet. What I wrote is what I wrote. Just quote me exactly – it’s not that difficult. Why bother asking me to repeat myself, if you already know what I said? Are you quite mad, or just pretending?

Mike Flynn: “A reasonably sealed room, a heat source at one side of the room, and a thermometer at the other side of the room, opposite… Now add CO2 to the air in the room… It absorbs heat, so it will warm up. Just like on Earth, it prevents radiation from reaching the thermometer.”

If the CO2 heats up, the whole room heats up eventually. It doesn’t magically retain the energy its absorbing without passing it on. It is thermodynamically connected to the air it sits within, the rest of the room and the thermometer. The surrounding air gets warmer with it. The thermometer is within the surrounding air.

How on Earth do you figure the introduced CO2 “traps” the heat and excludes it from permeating through the room and to the thermometer? It’s bizarre.

Mike Flynn:
A reasonably sealed room, a heat source at one side of the room, and a thermometer at the other side of the room, opposite Now add CO2 to the air in the room It absorbs heat, so it will warm up. Just like on Earth, it prevents radiation from reaching the thermometer.

What is it that you are disagreeing about, and what facts are you presenting to support your disagreement?

You contradict nothing, and merely pose another stupid Warmist “gotcha”. However, if you examine Beer’s Law (which can be stated, unlike the GHE), you will learn about energy reduction (attenuation) through an optical medium.

You persist in using stupid Warmist words like “traps”, presumably to cloud the issue.

Who cares? You could look it up if you wanted to know. But you don’t , of course. Just another foolish Warmist attempt to waste more of my time than I choose. Keep trying for a “gotcha”. You might slip one past me one day, while I’m sleeping or laughing too hard!

What is it that you are disagreeing about, and what facts are you presenting to support your disagreement?

As I said in both posts above, I am disagreeing that the CO2 shields the thermometer from the heat source.

The CO2 warms from the heat source – we agree.

The CO2 is not thermally isolated from the air it sits in, nor the room, nor the thermometer. If it absorbs energy from the heat source, it also radiates energy to the rest of the room and the thermometer. This is where we disagree.

The room in is receiving energy/heat from the heat source, and losing heat to the outside at the same time. If all else remains the same the thermometer temperature will rise a bit when the heat source is switched on, and eventually level out when heat loss of the room matches the energy input. Overall temperature in the room is a bit higher.

Stick a bunch of CO2 in the room and now there are more molecules absorbing the energy, the air warms up, and the temperature of the room rises until energy outflow compensates. The thermometer will reflect the extra heat energy in the room.

Sigh. You both have this all mixed around. Mike’s analogy doesn’t work to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. The wall is somehow representing both the sun (as energy source) and the earth (as the surface radiating to the CO2). This puts the thermometer in the wrong place (at the far side of the gas in the top of the atmosphere.

The wall (representing the earth’s surface) should be heated by something like sunlight coming in through a window. The thermometer should be on the surface (the wall).

Then ‘Just like on Earth, it [the CO2] prevents radiation from reaching the thermometer [located far from the wall/high in the atmosphere]’. Since radiation as been prevented from leaving THE WALL, then THE WALL (like the surface of the earth) warms up.

If you want to disagree with something I actually said, feel free. Maybe you could actually quote me, instead of inventing your own scenario.

The reason my example (not an analogy, by the way) doesn’t describe the “mechanism of the greenhouse effect” is probably because the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist! You’re arguing with something you wrote to yourself.

Possibly, you’re a foolish Warmist, still trying to employ the worn out tactics of deny, divert, and confuse. I’m pleased you find nothing it what I said that you disagree with. If you did, I’m sure you would have quoted me.

Still no GHE. You can’t even clearly state what physical phenomenon the GHE refers to, let alone how it may be observed of reproduced!

Then ‘Just like on Earth, it [the CO2] prevents radiation from reaching the thermometer [located far from the wall/high in the atmosphere]’. Since radiation as been prevented from leaving THE WALL, then THE WALL (like the surface of the earth) warms up.

There … much better.

Not much better. I agree in principle, of course. But when you say “[s]ince radiation [h]as been prevented from leaving THE WALL, then THE WALL (like the surface of the earth) warms up”, this is pretty misleading as to how our dynamic troposphere actually works. The surface would warm if NET ENERGY were prevented from leaving it, not just “radiation”. CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere do perhaps reduce the net rate of RADIATIVE energy escaping the surface, but NOT necessarily the net rate of TOTAL energy escaping the surface. In a (steady) state of dynamic equilibrium, ALL the energy/heat that enters the Earth system from the Sun also escapes. Smoothed out over the diurnal and/or annual cycle, there is no lag.

The ‘atmospheric thermal effect on the solar-heated surface’ is established on the way TO this (steady) state of dynamic equilibrium. IN this state, no heat is “held back” or “delayed” in its escape.

And it establishes itself as the atmosphere gradually WARMS from the surface heating it. The energy/heat from the surface is “captured” and thus accumulates in the atmosphere rather than escaping freely to space during the build-up phase towards the steady state, as long as the atmosphere hasn’t yet reached a temperature high enough to radiate the amount of energy to space required to balance the input from the Sun. This “captured” energy (the atmosphere’s ‘internal energy’) is mainly held by the nitrogen and oxygen molecules making up 98-99 % of the bulk atmosphere. The IR-active molecules (principally H2O, but also to a small extent, at least in the troposphere, CO2) are what radiates the atmospheric energy/heat to space. The transfer of energy/heat from the surface to the atmosphere happens via radiation, conduction and evaporation, and the energy is then effectively drawn up and into the atmosphere (troposphere, really), to where it can be radiated to space, by way of convection.

The atmosphere basically forces the average surface temperature of the (solar-heated) Earth to rise by not letting the energy escaping the surface freely disappear into the infinite heat sink of space, but rather holding it close to it, within a warm layer directly on top of it. Insulation.

“If you want to disagree with something I actually said … “
No, I am actually agreeing with what you said!

The simple fact is that the scenario that YOU DEVISED provides warming merely by introducing CO2. Something you claim to be impossible.

A warm wall — with some steady heat input to keep it warm — is radiating through the CO2 toward the far wall. As you acknowledge, this blocks some of the wall’s thermal IR and prevents it from getting to the thermometer at the far side of the room. This prevention of IR escape means more energy is retained in the wall and it will warm up further.

The *Other* thermometer at the far side of the room is not warming, but hey, you did make one thermometer get warmer by introducing CO2. And that — in the scenario you devised and described — is the greenhouse effect.

“The *Other* thermometer at the far side of the room is not warming, but hey, you did make one thermometer get warmer by introducing CO2. And that in the scenario you devised and described is the greenhouse effect.”

Yup. As described, and with the assumptions.

And got someone to say what they think a greenhouse effect is.
The degree that thermometer on other side room is cooled indicates an degree of the amount it could warmed on this side of the room.

There are, other complexities involved.
So if thermometer is cooled with CO2, as compared to without CO2, then why is it warmer without CO2.
Are assuming direct light being able to warm the thermometer, and it’s inhibited by CO2 or does this have to do with convection of air, or whatever. The assumption seems to me that it’s about directed light, it could be that there the same amount of direct and indirect light on other side of the room, and therefore this side of room doesn’t have to be warmed.

And of course as general matter the most important aspect [in terms science] is the question, how much.

I could be wrong, but I think youre telling me what you think Im saying, rather than quoting what I actually did say.

You acknowledge me quoting you and then say I haven’t. You offer a clear contradiction and refuse to acknowledge that it is one or deal directly with what I quoted of you.

Rather than clarify you play games, deflect and waffle. It’s not possible to get a direct, honest discussion from you. I don’t know if you’re even capable of that, but I know now that it’s pointless hoping for it.

‘Rather than clarify you play games, deflect and waffle. Its not possible to get a direct, honest discussion from you. I dont know if youre even capable of that, but I know now that its pointless hoping for it.’

You dodge, delect, or insult. The point of this forum is to discuss back and forth about science. Otherwise you are only being a troll and I dont know why you are here. You are certainly not persuading anyone to join your side.

You have fetish or obsession with being quoted exactly. Yet you quite happily spin other people’s words in absurd ways.

If someone raises an issue and puts it in their own words then a rational person will attempt to understand what they are saying. If you don’t GET what they are saying then ask them to clarify.

So you’re saying that, by the end of 2019 or 2020, the tend since 1998 or so will be negative. Is that right? And I’m assuming the temperature data of choice will be the satellite data set, UAH most like. Correct?

Just trying to nail down once and for all the exact data set and time frame, beginning and end, you’re thinking your hypothesis will be made or broken.

So that at that future time you nominate we can look back, finally, and say yes or no.

“Well Ive looked at some of your comments in this thread and Ive articulated your view accurately.”

I’m not sure what your assertion achieves. Why not just quote what I wrote?

An exact quote might tend to support your foolish Warmist assertion. Or it might not. Have you considered actually tossing in a fact or two to support your fantasy? Do you actually disagree with something I wrote?

Barry I don’t think it matters all that much in the big picture. That is El Nino.

Barry a question.

Do you agree that there must be solar parameters out there that if low enough in degree of magnitude and long enough in duration of time would impact the climate possibly bringing it to some sort of thresholds?

Next question if you answer the first question yes is the reason why you think solar is not a big climatic factor is because the variability of the sun is not extreme enough to impact the climate through primary and secondary effects?

Not being an expert on solar, I go with the mainstream view. Sun has a small influence on global temps. It must have some effect. But not great enough to overwhelm other factors in its 11(22)-year cycle. The cosmic ray theory remains speculative but unlikely to have a great influence.

“Not being an expert on solar, I go with the mainstream view. Sun has a small influence on global temps.”
Well the sun and the earth orbital changes has huge effect on global temps- that is a mainstream view [what is considered to cause glacial and interglacial periods].

Also it’s well known [indisputable] that Solar Max and Min affects density of lower earth orbits [the higher part of Stratosphere and Mesosphere].
Though I am not making any claims about changes of upper stratosphere effecting average temperature [in fact I tend to be skeptical about such things]. But there significant known effect which occurs like clockwork- predictable, significant, and allowed for if launching satellites in low earth orbit.

But I think actual changes of global temperature is slow process, but changes [like noise in the system] is measured and counted as global changes in temps. Or these global changes in temperature are alterations of global or large regions of various heat [energy] transports [which if continue long enough] do noticeably effects upon the actual global temperatures.
Or one could say we are measuring weather, and weather is actually important, but it’s different than global average temperature [which really, aren’t very important though important to understand because one might be able to predicate weather further into the future].

Not being an expert on solar, I go with the mainstream view. Sun has a small influence on global temps. It must have some effect. But not great enough to overwhelm other factors in its 11(22)-year cycle.

Its effect does not come directly via its TSI, barry. The Sun is evidently behind the warming over the last decades. But again, TSI alone doesn’t matter. TSI minus albedo (ASR, net SW) is what matters. ASR is the actual solar hear to the Earth. TSI isn’t.

Large-scale circulatory cloud changes (significantly in the tropics) lowered Earth’s albedo from the 80s to the 90s, thus causing a considerable positive imbalance between IN and OUT at the ToA.

I know. Which means you had a golden opportunity to inform him. About what you after all know and understand. That TSI is not equal to “solar heat” to the Earth. That ASR (TSI minus albedo) is. And that THIS is therefore the relevant thermodynamic parameter by which to evaluate the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate, not the TSI alone.

The usual foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse? I might be mistaken, but I see no mention of GHE in the TOC. Maybe it’s with Trenberth’s missing heat, Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, or Gavin Schmidt’s science degree.

Mike, Wow you tried to answer, well actually you tried to wiggle out, but still you dont actually address the issue.

‘Obviously, any fool can claim that the GHE exists, and many do. They cant describe where the phenomenon may be observed, or how it may be reproduced. Some effect! Some science!’

Not just any fool, but all textbooks, courses and meteorology faculty. You consider all meteorologists fools?

These ‘fools’ are clear that the GHE exists. And they clearly understood GHE is required to properly model the atmosphere and weather.

As I said, this has real, everyday consequences for weather prediction.

You say ‘Still no GHE. You cant even observe it, let alone reproduce it!’ and many other similar remarks.

I disagree because GHE has been observed and thoroughly studied, so much so that it is in every textbook. It is a key component of our understanding of atmospheric physics. If this understanding is wrong, as you claim, then weather models should fail to predict the weather. But they dont fail.

There is NOTHING to learn. A greenhouse effect suggests the atmosphere acts like a real greenhouse due to certain gases that can absorb infrared energy.

Please note: infrared energy is NOT heat.

A real greenhouse warms because MOLECULES of warmed gas (hence more energized) are trapped by the glass. Heat is the energized molecules). If the glass was not there the molecules would become buoyant and rise while cooler air replaced it via convection.

There is NOTHING in the atmosphere that can trap molecules of air therefore there is nothing in the atmosphere that can trap heat. Heat in the form of energized gas molecules rises straight through the atmosphere.

The GHE is based on seriously bad science. It is presumed the glass in a real greenhouse warms by trapping infrared energy which is sheer nonsense. That was disproved by Woods in 1909 when he set up boxes side by side, one covered in glass and the other covered in halite (rock salt) which is known to pass IR.

Foolish politician Flynn again: “any fool can claim that the GHE exists, and many do. They can’t describe where the phenomenon may be observed”

Flynn has adequately claimed the GHE exists and actually described where the phenomenon may be observed on Earth by instrumentation, all demonstrated by his past verbatim quoted words in this comment stream.

Foolish politicians such as Flynn are perfectly capable to reverse what they have written, at any time of their choosing. And then reverse yet again. Votes are important.

Foolish politicians also see fit to place their thought experiment thermometers in order to dodge what they have written. Scientists can see through this attempt Flynn, and place their thermometers correctly.

Counting Flynn’s numerous reversals is a humorous past time for many here I see. Gotcha!

“Earth’s ozone layer has been in the news lately after the United Nations reported last month that the planet’s protective layer might be making a recovery.

Heres a quick rundown of some ozone layer basics what it is and whats been wrong with it as well as more details on its current status:

Ozone is invisible to the naked eye, but essentially makes life on Earth possible. It’s a gas composed of oxygen atoms, which Steve Ackerman, the director of the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies at University of Wisconsin-Madison, described as very corrosive and highly reactive.

Ackerman explained that atmospheric scientists classify ozone as good or bad depending on where it occurs. He said that ozone that is close to the Earths surface is bad because its an irritant and pollutant.

On the other hand, ozone that is in the stratosphere 20 miles above the surface of the Earth isn’t just good, but necessary, he said.

We want that ozone because that ozone interacts with ultraviolet radiation and absorbs that energy, he said.

Thats important, because those rays are the ones that are damaging to skin and other cells of the body.

“Ozone is generated in the stratosphere by the interaction of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation with molecular oxygen.”

Or maybe you prefer NOAA –

“Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere.”

As I said. Foolish Warmists (and there must be a few in various US Government places – EPA, NASA, etc., refuse to accept that ozone is produced by intense UV from sunlight, at the limits of the atmosphere.

You could see the real GHE on the Moon and it would null and void Gordon Roberston’s objections that a GH works by restricting convection.

On the Moon you build a normal glass greenhouse and put a thermometer on the ground in the middle of this construction.
Outside the greenhouse you have another thermometer on the ground as a control.

With a flux of 1360 W/m^2 solar input during the 2 week solar day. The surface of the Moon will get to around 393.5 K and that is what your control thermometer will read after the surface achieves an equilibrium state where the solar energy absorbed by the Sun equals the energy emitted by the hot surface.

Inside the Greenhouse you have constructed, glass will absorb 10% of the incoming flux so the solar flux reaching the surface will be reduced to 1224 W/m^2. At first the thermometer in the GH will read a lower temperature than the one outside the GH.

But as the surface warms and starts emitting IR the glass will absorb nearly all the upwelling IR (glass is opaque to IR), the glass will heat until it reaches a temperature that is emitting 1224 w/m^2 (which it would do based upon the First Law of Thermodynamics…it will keep rising in temperature until it emits at the same rate energy is going in).

The warm glass will emit in all directions including back to the surface. It will keep warming and increasing emission until it reaches an equilibrium state of 1224 OUT to space. That means it will also be radiating an additional 1224 W/m^2 back to the surface which will be absorbed by the surface (not one person on this blog has provided any evidence, other than declarative statements, that the energy would not be absorbed). The surface has the 1224 W/m^2 from the solar input and the 1224 W/m^2 from the glass radiant flux. The combination of the fluxes means the surface is absorbing 2448 W/m^2 and will rise in temperature until the surface emits 2448 W/m^2 which will occur at a temperature of around 455.8 K. The Greenhouse on the Moon would raise the thermometer temperature by 62.3 K.

Hi Norman,
I partially agree with you because being glass a solid, it warms up and emits after having abs-orbed the radiation from the ground.
So the back-radiated energy is proportional to the ground flux.

But IMHO gases are all another thing, admitting that the GHG molecules don’t exchange their KE with the ground (which is not of course, because of gravity) the maximum flux of energy back-radiated is limited by the number of GHG molecules which are obstructing the ground FOV of the open space, multiplied by their bending energy divided by the photon residence time into the molecule.

The problem I see is if you continue to iterate ad infinitum it will show that this is not feasible.

According to your setup the next stage will be to lift the T of the glass yet again by this doubled source of flux from the ground (2448 W/m2). As there is no concentrating of the sun’s flux this just can’t happen.

Look at it another way. At equilibrium the glass max T will emit at the 1390 W/m2 to space. No further juice is available for the glasshouse floor.

Thanks for your response. I do not understand your point that the glass T will increase ad infinitum.

The 2448 W/m^2 emitted by the Moon surface surrounded by a glass greenhouse will not continue to raise the temperature of the glass. The glass will be emitting 1224 W/m^2 to space (which is the same amount of solar energy constantly reaching the Moon’s surface within the GH). The glass is emitting 1224 W/m^2 in both directions. It actually has a surface area of 2 m^2 not just one that the surface has. Each surface of the glass emits 1224 W/m^2. In order to emit this much energy it must have an input of 2448 W/m^2 which is why the surface inside the Greenhouse continues to increase in temperature until it is emitting 2448 W/m^2.

I am not sure why you think the glass will keep on getting hotter and hotter. It would only do this if you blocked the outgoing radiant flux of 1224 W/m^2. Otherwise all energy is balanced. Incoming and outgoing.

If you can go into deeper explanation of your view or point I would like that.

Hi Norman,
It is a good thought experiment but we assume conditions. In these blogs we leave some of these unsaid but quasi understood. For example in context we will mean like for like comparison and so on otherwise we need a very long post. This is where some bloggers then have a ball with you and I sympathise.

You have assumed the glass has total opacity to all frequencies lower than visible light (I find great difficulty here). There is no definition of what thickness of glass and what conductance you allow (I just assume it will conduct). You assume no conductance by the floor substrate. ( I have difficulty here). The sidewalls are left undefined. Already we have differences in the experiment.

Whatever conditions are imposed will be subject to Thermodynamic Laws. Just because a condition does not violate the 1st LOT does not mean it won’t violate the 2nd. Both must hold.

To me, it really does not matter what the thoughts are as they must satisfy the 2nd LOT. Call me rigid here but I am in good company. The only area where this may breakdown is in a black hole and perhaps in electron transition jumps (with a big query on the latter; I am still mulling it over).

By jumping to an end point of your experiment you are only satisfying the 1st LOT. No amount of back radiation from the glass will ever increase the T of the ground from which it sourced the energy. You are suggesting it will! Irrespective of your belief this does violate the 2nd LOT and will not happen.

But why do you stop at twice the flux. Why not go to 3 ,4, 5 etc times the flux of the sun (i.e. its attenuated equivalent at the moon surface) and play hell with 2nd LOT. The 1st LOT will still be satisfied at any end point of your sequence. What prevents this?

Somewhere here you also need to clear up how the top surface gets to 1224 W/m2 (abt 384K) and how it insulates itself from the other side of abt 456K. Somewhere you assume a transfer of energy to the top surface from the bottom in an undisclosed manner but somehow it must be half the bottom radiation equivalent. By what physics? It can’t be radiation as your constraint is zero IR transmittance.

Ultimately these sort of issues are resolved by experiment. Even an earth experiment can be used and Wood’s type of experiments can be emulated. Keep the glass surface perpendicular to the sun on a clear day. Leaving aside some convection/conduction to atmosphere loss, the inside has never reached the solar attenuated flux T equivalent let alone double. Nasif Nahle also seemed to conduct somewhat similar experiments. And yes these could be conducted in space.

Very interesting. What Norman has described is exactly the kind of stuff that others have thought about Greenhouses on the Moon. They also go on saying one can’t grow plants on the Moon for this reason [which Norman **didn’t** jump to such a silly conclusion]. But rather reach 1390 as max, the greenhouse would have a cooler surface temperature, because you have increased the area with the glass can radiate heat as compared to the floor area.
Though this doesn’t apply much if you had some shallow box which could be nearly the same area as the floor area.
Or one can make greenhouse on the Moon very hot [120 C], one can also heat water very hot [120 C] without any kind of magnification. But it’s very easy to control the temperature by providing shade [such as use reflectors to point the sunlight elsewhere].
And one do the opposite of shallow box, one could have a tall vertical box- or because of pressure concerns, tall cylinders.

But how it’s done depends what design would most economical- relating many aspects.

The experiment I described does not have to be done on the Moon, it can be done on the orbiting space station. Why do you think building a glass greenhouse on the move is comparable to a fantasy about unicorns? I think you have some obsession to unicorns like C*o*t*t*o*n had to Venus and Uranus. I do not follow your thought process here.

Building a greenhouse on the Moon or a smaller version at the space station is not a fantasy. It is something that can be built in this reality. Also the greenhouse on the Moon fully describes the GHE in a scientific verifiable form. Solar energy is mostly transparent to light. Opaque to Infrared. What more do you need than that?

“Building a greenhouse on the Moon or a smaller version at the space station is not a fantasy. It is something that can be built in this reality. Also the greenhouse on the Moon fully describes the GHE in a scientific verifiable form. Solar energy is mostly transparent to light. Opaque to Infrared. What more do you need than that?”

Elon Musk wanted to build a greenhouse on Mars, and that journey lead him to building SpaceX [he plans to settle Mars]. Another madman built and got launched a couple space station- using Russian launch to get them there- but I guess, he didn’t dream of greenhouse in orbit.
A problem with greenhouse in orbit is no gravity- and no one has actually made artificial gravity in space, yet.
The other thing is you still in Earth’s atmosphere, and have drag from this atmosphere- it lacks permanency. Whole idea of Low earth orbit is it costs the least amount of delta-v to get there. And getting there is hard, getting further is harder.
Any idea was to refuel from LEO so you get further- “LEO is 1/2 way to anywhere” which is true, even in terms of getting to the stars [if you want to take forever to get there]. Anyways Reagan wanted this, but NASA turn it into political thing with Russians, and focus on microgravity research and studying the effects of space on humans- rather than being a gas station to rest of solar system. Anyways LEO isn’t very good in terms of being permanent, +100,000 kg of rocket fuel has been used to re-boost ISS. Which wouldn’t matter much IF you established a means of shipping rocket fuel into space, cheaply.
Other things are you have a 90 min day and some warming comes from Earth. I wondered for a while what temperature of a can of water would be in space- say 45 gallon drum painted black. Not something I would wonder much about on the moon or Mars. I assume it would over 0 C, but want something more precise than that. Same goes for high earth orbits- particularly for Earth/Moon L-1 [I assume probably warmer].

Norman, after re-reading what you said, I realized you didn’t mention any gas in greenhouse. Though also for your purpose there is no need of any gas.
So in terms of economy trying to merely get highest temperatures, on moon one could simply have a stack of multiple panes of glass.
Rather than one glass roof, have stack of window panels, say 10 of them separated by 1 inch of vacuum [or couple feet or couple mm or whatever you like best].

One could also compare a greenhouse without gas, with greenhouse with gas in it- say nitrogen gas or water gas- or CO2, or even some super greenhouse gases or the perfect selective mix of greenhouse gas- such as methane, CO2, O3, H20, and others deemed super.

Let’s start with empty greenhouse, vs a greenhouse filled will Nitrogen gas [2 psi]
Is there any temperature difference between them. Does one of them have a higher noon time temperature surface temperature?
Obviously one will have a higher air temperature- one has air temperature and other doesn’t. And what about nighttime cooling, would there be any difference.
Or what happens if astronaut enter both these greenhouse [in space suit] would notice any different between them. Basically wondering [other than breathing] is there any kinds of differences which are notable.

And the if want to add other gases to get better temperature- let’s make greenhouse 10 meter high so one add many moles of CO2, and etc. Not sure how watts per square meter of 15 micron photon you get fro 120 C surface [other than it’s a lot more than what the Earth surface can emit.

According to my Chemistry calculations (which could be wrong) I get that there are around 5.78×10^21 molecules of Carbon Dioxide in 1 cubic meter of air near the surface. That still makes a lot of emitters.

A mole of carbon dioxide with each molecule emitting at least one 15 micron photon per second would give 7975 joules of energy. The moles in one cubic meter of air of Carbon Dioxide is (based upon my calculation) 0.00925 moles so if all the molecules emitted one 15 micron photon per second you would get a total flux of 73 joules. Since half of that energy will return to the surface, you could potentially get a flux of 36.5 Watts returning to the surface, since each m^2 of air could supply such energy you could get 36.5 W/m^2 from each cubic meter of air. The column of air goes up so you get more than that. By Hottel’s graphs you get around 60 W/m^2 backradiation from Carbon Dioxide concentration in air. The rest of the downwelling IR is due to water vapor, clouds and other GHG.

Hi Norman,
very nice to see that you are looking for the truth here, not just repeating a mantra as some others do.
Anyways, you missed one point about my thought (because I bad explained it, just my fault indeed).
The energy you computed is valid if (and only if) the GHGs concentration lead to a so rarefied environment that there are no collisions between the molecules which can discharge the bending energy to the other surrounding molecules.
In that case the back-radiation is far less and depends on the GHGs temperature not its concentration in the air mixture.
Note that for in-line molecules at rest (such as the case of CO2), the probability of gaining bending energy by collisions and emitting a thermal photon is less probable than release the bending energy by collision because once its charged the photon bended molecule is no longer linear shaped so it suffices 2 neighboring molecules to discharge its bending energy (instead of 3, when the 3 atoms of the molecule are in line you need a third colliding molecule as fulcrum in the middle C atom to bend it).

Note that for in-line molecules at rest (such as the case of CO2), the probability of gaining bending energy by collisions and emitting a thermal photon is less than release the bending energy by collision, this because once it is charged (the photon bended molecule) it’s no longer linear shaped. So it suffice 2 neighboring molecules colliding to the O atoms to discharge its bending energy (instead of 3 molecules, because when the 3 atoms of the CO2 molecule are in line you need a third colliding molecule to provide a fulcrum at the middle C atom to bend it).

I do not think I misunderstood your point. I do not think the GHE is caused by GHG absorbing IR then emitting it before collisions. The evidence is against this interpretation. I use Hottel’s empirical testing that warmed GHG emit based upon the surrounding temperature, the concentration of the gases and the path length of the gases involved. My calculations were only to show there is enough CO2 present to create a macroscopic flow of IR.

Graphs such as these tend to show that GHE is the result of a warm atmosphere emitting downwelling IR based just on its own temperature. You can see the steep upward curve of the UPwelling IR (from 400 to up to 650) The downwelling does not follow the curve, it seems to be more based upon the air temperature. AS the air above the surface warms it starts to emit more downwelling IR.

Hi Norman,
It seems to me that we are telling the same story here.
When you wrote “Graphs such as these tend to show that GHE is the result of a warm atmosphere emitting downwelling IR based just on its own temperature”.
Well, this is exactly what I meant when I wrote that the bending energy of the abs-orbed photon is easily shared with the surrounding molecules, because IMHO the direct consequence of that is a photon emission due to the gases (not only GHGs) molecules. But this is not the GHGe as we know it for me. Because of that sharing of energy, I dont agree to the misconception that a trace gas such as CO2 can do many. As the energy is shared with the bulk air mixture of N2 and O2 the photon emission is no longer a function of the ground previous temperature, but the one of the local air where the photon is emitted, which is mostly dependent from the ground through the convectional process over all the air mixture and let me add the gravitational lapse rate (which Im still sure it exists). For this I continue to repeat that IMHO the radiative flow is in parallel to the convective and gravitational ones and that at tropo altitudes the first does almost nothing for determining the temperature at the surface.

The atmosphere seems to no transmit any IR from surface to space from Carbon Dioxide. All of it seems to be absorbed. I am not sure how this was determined but the source of the graph is the Navy. Maybe they used IR lasers to get the data, I am not sure.

The energy that the satellite gathers from the 15 micron wavelength of IR is not at all from the surface but the energy emitted by the cooler and less dense Carbon Dioxide found at levels near the TOA. It is far leas than the surface emission because the atmosphere has less CO2 as you go up (less emitters, less emissivity) and it is colder so the amount of energy emitted is greatly reduced.

The combination of these graphs would determine that Carbon Dioxide does contribute to the GHE radiatively but far less than the other big players, clouds and Water vapor.

I involuntarily explained it in my previous response to you above.
Note that it implies that CO2 at low tropo levels CO2 shares all the absorbed energy with all the other GHGs and NON GHGs, so its influence her at ground is negligible,

“If you want to disagree with something I actually said … “
No, I am actually agreeing with what you said!

The simple fact is that the scenario that YOU DEVISED provides warming merely by introducing CO2; something you claim to be impossible.

A warm wall — with some steady heat input to keep it warm — is radiating through the CO2 toward the far wall. As you acknowledge, this blocks some of the wall’s thermal IR and prevents it from getting to the thermometer at the far side of the room. This prevention of IR escape means more energy is retained in the wall and it will warm up further.

The *Other* thermometer at the far side of the room is not warming, but hey, you did make one thermometer get warmer by introducing CO2. And that — in the scenario you devised and described — is the greenhouse effect.

Mike complains “The usual foolish Warmish addition of a heat source not previously in evidence, hoping no one will notice. ”

But the experiment as stipulated by Mike was: ” It would seem easy to set it up. A reasonably sealed room, a heat source at one side of the room, and a thermometer at the other side of the room, opposite.

A warm wall with some steady heat input to keep it warm is radiating through the CO2 toward the far wall.

You believe this is identical with –

“A reasonably sealed room, a heat source at one side of the room, and a thermometer at the other side of the room, opposite.”, which I wrote.

If you believe they are identical, wouldn’t it be easier to just quote my exact words, rather than creating your own narrative?

If you were unsure of what I might regard as a heat source, you might have asked me for clarification. It seems to be the nature of foolish Warmists to try to tell me what I’m thinking, and refuse to accept that I wrote what I wrote.

You wind up arguing with yourself. I’m surprised you don’t win more often. Now is your chance to tell me I really meant to say the words you created, and that you were really helping me by changing my meaning totally.

CO2 heats nothing. The GHE is a figment of your imagination. The globe has cooled for four and a half billion years. All your imaginary experiments cannot change a single fact.

How would you like it if your competitors were given a huge cash loan and you were forced out of business? Because that is exactly what happened to solyndra’s competitors. The solar companies that were efficient and making it work are teats up. Govt has a purpose but it’s not to subvert the market place picking winners and losers. It’s to provide oversight and regulatory function. If govt is to be involved the model should have been the one NASA used to develop the space program. Lowest bidder aka most efficient. But congrats for thinking you’ve perfected Marx.

And David, I suppose you think the purpose of government is to do what: Pick winners and losers? Of course you do. Deciding who gets taxpayer funded subsidies and grants based on their political leanings is what has been going on for a few decades now. Which is one of the reasons so many oppose Trump. He is cutting off the B/S ticket.

If you don’t understand how to look for information yourself, using Google or similar, let me know. I know you expect to bend others to your will, but it might be a bit unrealistic to sit back and demand others spoon feed you.

YOUR OWN WORDS: “You cant actually make a thermometer hotter by surrounding it with CO2, can you?”

I will link to three videos that directly prove your statement untrue. Will you continue to state it after looking at the links?

There is debate about the cause of the warming indicated but their is one fact in all the tests. Surrounding a thermometer with CO2 does make it hotter so your statement is not correct and I am hoping you no longer make this statement in your posts.

Indeed. CO2 reduces the amount of IR reaching the camera – or a thermometer placed in the same position. Less IR reaching the thermometer, and the temperature goes down, not up!

Foolish Warmist! You seem to be prepared to reject the evidence of your own lying eyes, it appears. Keep it up. You might even convince yourself that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, if you try really, really, hard.

I do believe the point you just made will have no impact on Mike Flynn. I just found out he is a very dishonest poster. He makes a statement about CO2 surrounded by a thermometer. He never stipulates conditions just makes this statement over an over.

You cant actually make a thermometer hotter by surrounding it with CO2, can you?

I link him to three videos that show a hotter thermometer that is surrounded by CO2 then he launches stipulations. I do not see any conditions in his question. I provide three examples and he will not even show a manly strength that he got something wrong and admit that he is not infallible.

“Therefore, for atmospheric CO2, some of it goes downward to the ground.”

You’re correct. A portion, in accordance with Beer’s Law, which can be calculated using standard radiative transfer equations. The atmosphere reduces the Sun’s radiation to about 70% of that which initially strikes the atmosphere, normal to the Sun.

This is a rough figure, as at angles other than that normal to the Sun, refraction and Fresnel effects may reduce radiation reaching the ground to almost nothing, say at the portions of the globe at right angles to the plane of the ecliptic.

Still no GHE. At night the surface cools, just in case you’re going to mention radiation emitted by the surface. It goes elsewhere.

You’re right of course. Applying additional heat to a thermometer by heating air or CO2 with a hair dryer and using that to heat a thermometer will work. I assumed you were rational and sensible. Maybe I was wrong. David Appell doesn’t accept that the Earth’s surface was once molten. Maybe you’re the same – I don’t know.

Those “experiments” show that heat makes thermometers hotter. You shouldn’t need an experiment to convince you that thermometers indicate cooling at night, in the shade, indoors (generally), regardless of CO2 concentration.

On the other hand, you should be able to find an equal number of “experiments” which show corresponding drop in temperature below ambient, when CO2 is removed from the atmosphere surrounding the thermometer.

Mike Flynn says:
“No heating from CO2 the temperature has dropped, not risen.”

Why do you keep writing this junk?

You clearly know that CO2 absorbs IR, that its emissions radiate in all directions, that “the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops,” that Of course they cant admit that CO2 also absorbs incoming solar energy in the 15 um band….

All this adds up to the GHE. You’ve seen the evidence and understood it.

What do you keep playing this stupid game of denying the GHE? You look utterly ridiculous for doing so.

You’ve been had. If you can’t see where you’ve been bamboozled by poor experiment design and implementation, then you deserve what you get.

Any fool can heat CO2. Or any other matter, for that matter. Pathetically amateur and poorly implemented experimental protocols. For example, merely asserting the product of an exothermic reaction will be reduced to room temperature, without actually measuring the temperature, is a typical foolish Warmish action.

If these are the best “experiments” you can find, you’re not doing too well.

If you want to read about properly conducted experiments, see John Tyndall’s works. Foolish Warmists seem to have difficulty in accepting his results, which demonstrate the exact opposite of what foolish Warmists claim.

Try finding well designed and properly controlled experiments, following strict protocols, properly written up, and I’ll pay attention. The sort of rubbish you provide is pointless and misleading. Produced by believers, for the gullible.

DA…”You still havent explained how measuring a photons wavelength determines the temperature of its emitter”.

No one can. A wavelength, as the name implies, is the distance between crests on a waveform. Or between compressions on a wavefront. It is still being debated in places whether empty space through which EM travels is comprised of some kind of material or not.

Einstein thought not but Dayton Miller, a scientist from the early 20th century did. Einstein claimed if Miller is right his theory of relativity is wrong.

A photon, is a definition, and it is defined as a particle of EM, or quanta of EM, with momentum and no mass. Whatever quanta means exactly, no one has any idea.

No one has ever detected a photon as a single unit or as group. A particle cannot have a wavelength but a group of particles, like air molecules, can be compressed and rarefied by energy to demonstrate a wavelength between crests of compression or rarefaction.

To speak of photons having a wavelength, you’d need some kind of medium in which to measure them that compresses and rarefies as EM moves through it. I am not arguing that EM is comprised of a spectra of frequencies I am merely claiming no one knows what that means physically.

No one has any idea how the theoretical photon is emitted from an electron. No one knows what charge is on an electron, which is separate from the electron. Although you likely won’t find an electron with no charge you will find electrons moving slowly through a copper conductor while it’s associated charges move at the speed of light.

Norman,
Video 2 is the only one I watched.
The experiment is hardly worth watching.

The addition of a rubber tube and a gas, which is what temperature when it enters the beaker, will cause what difference in temperature? We don’t know.

What should have been done was to remove the rubber tube, stopper the beaker, so the CO2 could not escape, then wait – say an hour – for the temperature to stabilize, then see if there is a difference from previously.

YOU: “Those experiments show that heat makes thermometers hotter. You shouldnt need an experiment to convince you that thermometers indicate cooling at night, in the shade, indoors (generally), regardless of CO2 concentration.”

The experiments clearly show a hotter temperature for the thermometers surrounded by CO2 in comparison to thermometers in containers without the extra CO2. Both bottles in the experiments have heat added. The ones with the CO2 warm above the ones without so surrounding the thermometers with CO2 made them hotter than the ones not surrounded even though both have the same amount of heat added.

Surrounding a thermometer with hot water may make it hotter. Breathing expired air containing CO2 may cause a thermometer to get hotter.

Neither demonstrates any form of metaphorical and undefined GHE.

First, define your GHE. If you can’t do that, and David Appell at least, states the GHE is only a metaphor for something itself undefined, then you can’t really say anything at all supports a GHE.

I’m not sure what you think you are trying to say. Maybe you have chosen to purposely misunderstand me, I don’t know. I’m trying to communicate the fairly obvious fact that CO2 creates no heat. It doesn’t amplify heat. Like any other gas, it can be heated. Like any other gas, it can cool.

Just breathe out, if you wish. Your expired air contains all the normal atmospheric gases, with a greater proportion of CO2, and less O2. The exhaled gas mixture will be slightly less than 37 C. All the gases share the same temperature. Surprise, surprise!

They will all cool to the same ambient temperature, if less than this. No special treatment for CO2.

No GHE, Norman. A figment. The globe has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. Winter is colder than summer, and night cooler than day – generally of course, if you’re aiming for a “gotcha”.

Question for you. Did you spend anytime watching the videos I linked you to? If you did not then further discussion is pointless.

The videos were a direct proof that your claim is no correct (I quoted you directly): YOU CLAIM: “You cant actually make a thermometer hotter by surrounding it with CO2, can you?”

If you watched any of the videos you can see they have two bottles. One with CO2 added and the other without (the control). With input energy to both bottles the one with CO2 surrounding the thermometer reached a higher temperature than the control.

It might help you to understand the point of bringing up the three linked videos.

Mike’s statement: You cant actually make a thermometer hotter by surrounding it with CO2, can you?

There is nothing to swallow. Mike Flynn makes a blatant statement that you cannot warm a thermometer if you surround it with CO2 and the experiments directly contradict his statement. That was the only point of the videos. Criticize the experiments all you need to but they are doing far more than your posts on this blog. They are actually doing some experiments. You do none and sit and attack their efforts. Why do you do this? Do your own tests and experiments the way you like and post your results.

The experiments show that bottles and containers with CO2 added reach a higher temperature than bottles without the added CO2. Mike Flynn never stipulated conditions. He continued to make his blanket statement, not elaborating what he means, just posting it several times so I took up his challenge. Not that you understand that.

Norm, you do not even understand why that experiment was “crude”. You do not understand that a poorly conducted experiment is NOT science. Were the two thermometers “calibrated” to each other? Was each bottle receiving the exactly equal photon flux? What was the water vapor content of each bottle? What was the conduction and convection from each bottle?

As the first link claims, the constant in the Boltzmann equation is designed for very high temperatures, it cannot be applied at the temperatures found in our atmosphere and having done so has lead to the GHE theory.

Boltzmann is about blackbody radiation and to get such a radiator approximating a blackbody requires very high temperatures to generate the broad EM spectrum required by a blackbody.

Painting a body black in our atmosphere and claiming it acts like a blackbody is sheer nonsense unless you heat it to 5000 C.

“The Stefan-Boltzmann constant indicates that so much radiation is given off by the surface of the earth that it would give up all energy from the sun at an absurdly low temperature of -18C (0F), if it all radiated into space. But since the average temperature of the earth’s surface is 33C higher (15C or 59F), only greenhouse gases could add the extra heat needed to get to present surface temperatures, according to global warming alarmists.”

I think the Stefan-Boltzmann constant roughly works, basically it indicates a ideal blackbody at Earth’s average distance would be about 5 C.
Or roughly speaking Earth is somewhere around 5 C.
But the Greenhouse Effect “theory” misused this by adding modifiers to it, and arriving at idea that an ideal blackbody with these modifications should be -18 C.
One could say using Stefan-Boltzmann constant is good place to start, and each planet would have modifiers.
So ideal blackbody is essential magical- way beyond our technology. Or anything way beyond what is known is magical.
Flying airplanes in 16th century is magical- no one would have much of clue of how they worked- maybe has something to do with the loud noise it makes? Etc.
One thing magical about ideal blackbody, is the ability to conduct heat. The speed it conduct heat allows it to uniformly heat the entire planet. And this make the speed of rotation of a planet irreverent- zero speed or infinite speed of rotations matters not to an ideal blackbody.
Or they didn’t want the work of figuring out the effect on rotational speed and all the kinds transferring of heat [which we still don’t know that much about] so, they took a short cut. And said it would conduct the heat as fast as it needed to provide a uniform temperature.
So they and cheated, but told you they cheated- so you should be beware of this cheat [you should allow for the specific circumstance if want something which not just an approximation. And the fools didn’t. And related trick it no heat storage needed to be concerned about- all energy coming in was immediately radiated out- again, impossible.
Instead of ideal blackbody, one use a ball of iron as model, and iron is not magical.
So have large ball of iron, and say always faces the sun, and it’s in vacuum. It’s like the Moon but colder at nightside [this iron ball has nightside- and moon does not because Moon does rotate relative to the sun- darkside of moon is a misunderstanding, the correct word is farside of the Moon [as far as Earthlings are concerned]].
Now give rotation and it’s average temperature increase- it’s not as cold during the nighttime [it stores heat].
So have rotating sphere, it will have axis and equator. And it will matter if the tilt of axis is zero or 23 degrees [as Earth has]. It will have warmer average temperature with 23 degree tilt- maybe not significantly, but warmer rather than same or cooler. But to keep it simpler, let’s say it has zero degree axis. And to keep more familiar, say it’s rotation period is 24 hours. So zero axis would be as if it was always at the Spring or Fall equinox. And your latitude will be where sun reaches it’s highest point [always]. And at equator every day the sun at zenith at noon or if at 45 degrees north or south it’s 45 degree away from zenith. Etc.
At equator sun rises at rate of 15 degree an hour, hits noon and falls 15 degrees an hour, traveling a 180 degree arc [180 / 15 is 12 hours. Essentially everywhere else also has 12 hour day but arc is different. Or everywhere else the sun rises and set at less than 15 degree per hour.
On equator in 3 hour the sun at 45 degree above the horizon, at 45 degree latitude in 3 hour it’s 1/2 way toward reaching 45 degree [which is noon time].
Roughly speaking, whenever the sun is at or above 45 degree the sun heating the ground the most. So the equator region is heated more than anywhere else.
A common misconception due to a belief in greenhouse theory is that since earth’s tropics has lot water vapor, that this is causing the tropics to be warmer- but tropics is warmer because it receives more sunlight. And most absurd “product” of this belief is that CO2 causes there to be water vapor- the idea without Co2 there would not be water vapor created.

When will you stop getting all your information from a couple of articles that have no experimental validation. Just some ideas. I think it is good to throw out ideas and challenge the established order. It is not a good thing to find some article and think it is some established truth.

You won’t read textbooks but you will find any article that convinces you the GHE is wrong.

Here is a book that describes Stefan-Boltzmann empirical proof over all kinds of temperatures. It is true that equation is for a black-body but that is why emissivity is added to the equation to cover for the real world grey bodies. All this is covered in great detail in textbooks on the topic.

Norm continues to recommend textbooks that he himself does not understand. He continues in his effort to convince himself that he understands science. Pretty funny coming from a clown with a “Bachelor of ARTS” degree!

A bold statement from you: “Norm continues to recommend textbooks that he himself does not understand.”

Since you do not read textbooks or learn anything it is bold for you to make a declarative statement that I do not “understand” what I read when you don’t even read it at all. How do you make such a determination when you don’t read the material yourself?

Norman read this quote from the link you provided.
Read it VERY carefully and make sure you know every word of
what is said. Spend hours on it if you must:

“For conduction and convection the transfer of energy between two locations depends on the temperature difference of the locations to approximately the first power.*
The transfer of energy by thermal radiation between two bodies, however, depends on the difference between the individual absolute temperatures of the bodies each raised to power in the range of about 4 or 5.

From this basic difference between radiation and the convection and conduction energy-exchange mechanisms, it is evident that the importance of radiation becomes intensified at high absolute-temperature levels.

Consequently, radiation contributes substantially to heat transfers in furnaces and combustion chambers and to the energy emission from nuclear explosion.”

Meaning I had to type it down. So it was annoying, and so especially in this case: don’t waste time. Which would be doing if you don’t read carefully this little section from the textbook that you recommended.

And I would appreciate it, if acknowledge this post by describing the quoted portion’s significant or meaning
as you understand as it relates to climate issues.

Sorry you were annoyed that you could not copy and paste. I find this same problem.

You asked me to read and understand the meaning of the material you wrote from the textbook.

I think all of this has already been answered. For global averages you have the global energy budgets. In local areas evaporation or convection can be very large energy exchange mechanisms. Conduction will never amount to much in climate science because air is a very poor thermal conductor.

What is your understanding of the terms “approximately the first power” and “to power in the range of about 4 or 5.”
?

But I agree generally the conduction heat isn’t very significant [and metals [which not common in nature] are much better conductor of heat.
So heat conduction transferring a lot of heat is related human technology [metal making and use] rather aspects of typical natural environments.
Though in regard to radiant energy of the sun and natural transparency of Earth ocean surfaces, this heating kind of mimics/acts as an unbelievable fast conduction of heat.
We have no conductor of heat [copper or silver] which moves energy thru meters of material so quickly.
But the sun is also is very hot temperature source. Or sunlight may seem pretty weak, but it’s source is hot.

Or conduction of heat from sunlight thru solid rock [or worse sand] is not vaguely comparable to transfer of energy of sunlight thru the surface of ocean at the speed of light.
It’s radiant transfer but it’s traveling thru a transparent liquid or solid [ice] material which equally absorbs diffused or direct sunlight.
So nature has few tricks.

I think you should flush the first link down the nearest toilet. They talk about conduction. If you calculate the amount of energy the surface loses via conduction it is fractional.

Horrible physics on stupid blogs. Look at textbooks Gordon, it will do your mind good. Blogs can have good information but you should use textbooks on the topic to determine if they are feeding you a load of crap.

I calculated the conduction from the surface to air at about 0.2 W/m^2 that is not a significant contribution.

Convection is very high at the equator but not the poles or deserts which are dominated by sinking air (that is one reason deserts get hot, they restrict convection energy loses). The convection number is a global average.

I think you should flush the first link down the nearest toilet. They talk about conduction. If you calculate the amount of energy the surface loses via conduction it is fractional.+-

If focused on land surface, it’s a small amount.
With ocean surface it’s nearly non-existance- unless count mixing as conduction [I guess you could- but I think it would be called a convectional heat transfer].
But I would say biggest loss would be from evaporation.

He was soon joined by Davie, who also refused to answer, but contributed his usual insult.

So, why can’t they answer?

Simple. The Wein equation yields a temperature of -76C (-104.8F) for a peak wavelength from a black body. Pseudoscience pimps do not want to admit that basic fact. They want to try to convince people that a temperature of -76C (-104.8F) can dangerously overheat the planet!

Their pseudoscience fails them every time, forcing them into “spin” and hurling insults.

G* states ” The Wein equation yields a temperature of -76C (-104.8F) for a peak wavelength [of 14.7 um] from a black body.”
Yes, this is indeed true.

However, you seem to be forgetting that CO2 molecules are NOT BBs. They are extremely far from BBs. As such, an equation specifically created to describe BB radiation cannot be expected to apply to non-BBs.

What’s being missed here in all of this GHE physics arguments back and forth, for and against, is that the 2nd law does NOT apply at the individual particle level (or individual photon level), but rather only applies for the bulk flow or net flow of energy, which must be from warm to cold (and not the other way around).

When you have 3 bodies, i.e. the Sun, the surface of the Earth, and the (very thin) atmosphere in between, absorbed IR from the surface that’s re-radiated back downwards towards the surface can slow down the rate of the up IR cooling push ultimately out into space, and thus elevate the surface temperature above what it would otherwise be in order to achieve radiative balance with the Sun at the TOA.

Oh, there is additional heat retention as result, i.e. an increased net rate of joules being added to the surface that wouldn’t otherwise be. The point you’re missing is the net flow of energy is still up away from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere, and thus there’s no violation of the 2nd Law as result.